Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Paisley Corporation (Inchinnan Opening Bridge) Order Confirmation Bill.

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TOYS IMPORTED.

Mr. RAPER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of foreign toys into this country this year up to the end of September amounted in value to £1,381,287; whether it is the case that these imports of toys are constituting a grave threat to a new British industry; and whether the time has now arrived when the Government should consider means to check the importation of toys, in accordance with the undertaking of his predecessor?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Home): I am well aware that the value of toys imported into the United Kingdom is now as great as the hon. Member states. As I have already stated in this House, the whole question of the increased importation of goods resulting from the state of the exchange is under the consideration of the Government.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some months ago his predecessor, in answer to a question, stated that the value of the toys imported from Germany was negligible, but that
should it amount to a considerable figure proper steps would be taken to put a stop to it?

Mr. A. SHAW: If other nations can send us goods, and make them to advantage, is not that the essence of profitable international trade?

Captain TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the importation of foreign toys into this country is one of the causes of unemployment to-day?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that we are getting into a debate by question and answer.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports of toys and games from Germany, Netherlands, and other countries during the first ten months of the year 1920, as compared with the similar period in the year 1913?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer will involve a statistical table, and, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will have this published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the table referred to:
The values of the imports of toys and games into the United Kingdom consigned from Germany, Netherlands, and other countries registered during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1913 and 1920, respectively, were as follows:


Country whence consigned.
10 months ended 31st October.


1913.*
1920.



£
£


Germany
920,564
1,095,262


Netherlands
2,166
60,905


Other Countries
217,482
941,066


Total
1,140,212
2,097,233


* The figures for 1913 probably include a small amount in respect of balls, wholly or mainly of rubber, and of sports goods, which are not now classified under the heading of "Toys and Games."


It ought to be kept in mind that figures in money for 1920 are not really comparable with such figures for 1913.

WHOLESALE PRICES (AMERICAN AVERAGE).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that average wholesale prices in America in January last were 227.2 as against 288.5 in this country, and that by September the American average had fallen 43.2 to 184 while the average in this country had only fallen 4.4 to 284.1; and can he give the reasons why the decline in prices should be so much greater in America than in this country?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot accept the figures given in the question as accurate,


INDEX NUMBERS OF WHOLESALE PRICES ON THE BASIS, 1913=100.


Year 1920.
U.S.A. Bradstreet's.
U.S.A. Bureau of Labor.
U.S.A. Federal Reserve Board.
U.K. "Economist."


January
…
…
227.2
248
242
288.5


February
…
…
226.4
249
242
303.1


March
…
…
…
225.5
253
248
310.2


April
…
…
…
225.7
265
263
305.7


May
…
…
…
216.4
272
264
304.5


June
…
…
…
210.7
269
258
291.4


July
…
…
…
205.0
262
250
292.5


August
…
…
…
195.7
250
234
287.6


September
…
…
184.1
242
—
284.0

GLASS GOODS.

Mr. A. SHORT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which countries, including the Colonies, sent glass goods to this country during 1913; and the value and volume of such imports in each case?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to this question involves a long statement of figures, and to print it would in effect be to reprint the relevant page from the Annual Statement of Trade. I would accordingly venture to ask the hon. Member to refer to pages 122 and 123 of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1917, compared with the four preceding years (Cd. 9127), which will be obtainable in the Library. If he has any difficulty in satisfying himself, I will be glad to give any further explanation necessary.

Mr. SHORT: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which countries, including the Colonies, have sent glass goods to this country since the Armistice; and the value and volume of such imports in each case?

as varying statements are made in the United States of America on this subject. The figures given by the Washington Bureau of Labour and also those compiled by the Federal Reserve Board are in closer agreement with those quoted which relate to this country than the American figures quoted by my hon. Friend. I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the corresponding figures for the first nine months of this year.

The Table referred to is as follows:

Sir R. HORNE: The answer will involve a statistical table; and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will have one printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT when it has been completed.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Has anything been done to protect our glass industries?

Sir R. HORNE: Nothing has been done in the nature of protection.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is there any suggestion by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that anything is to be done in the nature of protection?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not making any suggestion.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is nothing to be done to protect key industries?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend properly discriminates as to what is a key industry and what is not. Part of the glass industry is a key industry and part is not.

Colonel LOWTHER: Will protection be given to that part which is a key industry?

Sir R. HORNE: The use of the word "protection" involves elements of controversy which I do not think it is necessary to raise, but in so far as this industry is a key industry, undoubtedly proposals will be made in a Government Bill dealing with this subject. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend would regard bottles as a key industry or not.

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of what is meant by a "key industry"?

Sir R. HORNE: I will try to do so when I come to make a speech dealing with this topic as a whole.

Mr. D. HERBERT: May I ask whether the Board of Trade have kept in spirit the agreements made with certain glass manufacturers in the early stages of the War, under which they agreed to deal with those companies on certain lines for a period of ten years after the War?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid, if my hon. Friend wishes to ask me any questions about specific agreements, he will have to refer me to those agreements. I am not aware of any such items to which he refers.

GERMAN EXPORTS (CURRENCY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether German goods for export are invoiced by order of the German Government in the currency of the purchasing country; on what rate of exchange is this calculated for goods to England; is this by arrangement with the allied Governments: and can he state the object of these orders?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of any orders of the German Government to the effect stated in the question, but a requirement that sales should be effected in foreign currency is frequently, although not always, included in the general conditions governing the issue of export licences in particular trades which are framed by the semi-official bodies representing those trades. In the case of goods invoiced to this country in sterling, the rate of exchange is, I understand, that of the day. No question of arrangements with Allied Governments arises. When the practice is adopted, it is probably with the object of securing the
best possible prices for exports and obtaining bills of exchange for financing imports.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is being done universally in Germany, and that the explanation given to our buyers is that it is by order of the German Government, and that it is being done at the request of the Allies; and is he aware that this means that we are not getting the benefit of the low exchange, in Germany?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid my information does not coincide with that of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not aware that it is universal, and, in fact, my opinion is to the contrary. My information is also to the effect that it is not done by the German Government. I have no doubt German exporters are encouraged to sell at rates which would represent those in terms of the currency in the countries to which the exports are being sent. Obviously that would be a wise policy on their part.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is looking into the matter, and can he assure us it is engaging the attention of his Department?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, we are perfectly aware of all these things, but I do not know any means by which you can determine the price at which a German is prepared to sell his goods here.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Lieut-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imports to and exports from this country, respectively, during the nine months ended 30th September, 1919, and the same particulars for the nine months to 30th September, 1920?

Sir R. HORNE: The total values of the imports into and the exports and re-exports from the United Kingdom registered during the nine months ended 30th September, 1919 and 1920, respectively, were as follows: Imports for 1919, £1,166,000,000; for 1920, £1,501,000,000 Exports for 1919, £541,000,000; for 1920, £1,007,000,000. Re-exports for 1919, £98,000,000; for 1920, £180,000,000.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the values of to-day were those of 1913 imports and exports would be much lower than they are at present?

Sir R. HORNE: That is quite a proper observation. You cannot really compare the money prices of to-day with the money prices of an earlier period or before the War; but if you take 1920 as compared with 1919 a far less allowance has to be made obviously.

CEMENT.

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the quantity of cement exported to foreign countries during the last six months?

Sir R. HORNE: During the six months ended 31st October, 1920, 158,245 tons of British cement were registered as exported to foreign countries.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any permit is necessary to export cement, having regard to our own shortage?

Sir R. HORNE: No permit is necessary.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making a permit necessary, so that the Minister of Health might be able to get on with his housing scheme?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been in constant communication with the Minister of Health on this matter in order to avoid the possibility of the home supply being short.

Mr. BILLING: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the home supply is not short?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Do not our exports of this cement help the exchange very much, and so reduce the cost of living?

Sir R. HORNE: Of course they do. I hope the House will remember that in these matters we must try and keep the balance as nearly as we can; sometimes it is on the wrong side and sometimes on the right side, but we are endeavouring to do our best. What my hon. Friend has just said is true; you want to export all you can in order to benefit this country, provided you keep the home market supplied, and all the time we are trying to attain that object.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the home market is supplied?

Sir R. HORNE: As I say, I keep in constant touch with the Ministry of Health on this subject.

Dr. MURRAY: As the bulk of this exported cement is charged at a higher price than the home cement, do I understand that the foreign countries are objecting to our dumping cement in those countries?

Sir R. HORNE: That is the very reverse of dumping.

DYESTUFFS.

Mr. DOYLE: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the consumers and manufacturers of the British dyestuffs industry are substantially agreed as to the lines upon which a Bill to safeguard its interests should be framed; and, if so, will the Government introduce a Bill without any unnecessary delay?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am sorry to say that there is no such agreement as is suggested in the first part of the question. As to the second part, the Government are prepared to give an undertaking that the first measure to be dealt with in the coming Session will include the Government's proposals for carrying out their pledges in this matter, and their obligations as contained in the; prospectus of the British Dyestuffs Corporation.

Mr. DOYLE: If the right hon. Gentleman receives satisfactory assurances that there is a substantial agreement—if the users and manufacturers show that—will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is very much more sanguine than my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the rest of us in touch with consumers and users of these dyes. But if there were agreement that a Bill would go through very easily—that is a matter which the Government might be prepared to consider.

Major BARNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government accept the allegation in the whole of the prospectus issued by the British Dye-stuffs Corporation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot remember what the whole of the prospectus contained. My recollection is that those concerned set out certain pledges which were given at the time by the Government—I believe they set them out quite fairly. Those pledges we must honour.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that there was a definite guarantee held out in the prospectus, and that the longer the Government delays in fulfilling that guarantee the longer it is a breach; and are not the ordinary directors of a company issuing a prospectus liable to damages for failure to implement their guarantee?

Mr. KILEY: Was there any limitation of the amount of the profit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid there is for the moment no question of profit. My hon. Friend need not worry very much about that. Certainly there was an undertaking given by the Government, and we are in honour bound to invite the House of Commons to honour that undertaking.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: In honouring that agreement will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the textile industries are not injured, and are able to have access to the cheapest and best dyes procurable?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure himself in future that he has the support of the House of Commons before he gives these undertakings for the Government to honour?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. A. SHORT: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the delays of the British clearing-house for enemy debts, involving the retention by that Department of many millions of British money for which British claims have been duly lodged and proved several months ago; whether he will take steps to have diplomatic pressure brought to bear upon the German clearing-house authorities in Berlin, so that the machinery of the British clearing-house may not be blocked by the inefficient methods of the German authorities; whether he is aware that
nearly a year has elapsed since many of the British claims were lodged and proved with the British clearing-house; and what steps he proposes to take in the British clearing-house itself to speed matters up?

Sir R. HORNE: Claims cannot be paid until they have been properly found due in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Treaty of Peace, but claims by British creditors to the amount of £10,000,000 sterling have already been paid or will be paid this month. I do not think that any occasion for taking diplomatic action has arisen. I am aware that claims were lodged with the British Clearing Office soon after it was opened in January last, but they could not be notified to the German Clearing Office until the latter was established at the end of April. The British Clearing Office is working under extreme pressure, and I am satisfied that there has been no delay on its part in dealing with the claims of British creditors.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the same as to Germany?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend must recognise that this is a very, very large matter. I do not wish to criticise the German operations. I think our own have been more efficient. We are doing everything in our power to expedite the satisfaction of these debts.

AGREEMENTS (PUBLICATION).

Mr. HOGGE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when he will carry out his undertaking to publish all agreements, protocols, &c, relating to the execution of the Treaty of Versailles?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As my hon. Friend is aware, publication of the documents in question is not a matter for the sole decision of His Majesty's Government. Negotiations are now proceeding with the other parties interested, and I hope to be able to give my hon. Friend the information he desires at an early date.

Mr. HOGGE: When shall I put a question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will the hon. Gentleman put it on this day week?

EX-ENEMY NATIONALS' PROPERTY.

Mr. ACLAND: 44.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether His Majesty's Government has decided to restore to individual Germans, to a certain limited and specified value, property confiscated from them during the War; and, if so, what is the specified value in question?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The property of individual Germans was not confiscated either during the War or by the Treaty of Peace. Under the Treaty, however, such property in this country may be charged to meet German obligations to this country. An arrangement has been under discussion with the German Government and is, I think, on the point of conclusion, for facilitating the restitution of British property in Germany, and meeting certain difficulties in regard to storage and other charges incurred on such property where it was not actually taken over by the German authorities. As part of this arrangement, it is proposed to release from the charge established under the Treaty of Peace household furniture, personal effects and implements of trade in this country belonging to German nationals up to an amount of £500 in addition to the amount of storage and other charges, in cases where the income of the German national does not exceed the equivalent of £400 a year. In addition a Committee has been appointed, consisting of Lord Justice Younger, the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate, and Sir Malcom Macnaghten, to advise upon applications from ex-enemy nationals for the release of their property within certain limits upon the grounds of necessitous circumstances. The limits which have been communicated to the Committee are property to the value of £1,000 in the case of ex-enemy nationals now resident in this country, and to the value of £200 in the case of ex-enemy nationals formerly resident in this country and now resident elsewhere. In addition to capital, income may be released up to a reasonable amount.

Mr. ACLAND: Will the details in regard to the proposed arrangement be laid before the House as soon as it is ready?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be glad, if there be any desire, to look into that.

DIESEL ENGINES.

Mr. KILEY: 63.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all Diesel engines in Germany are to be destroyed; and whether such engines are indispensable in industry?

Mr. MYERS: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state approximately the number of Diesel engines which the Ambassadors' Conference, in accordance with its decision of 2nd December, has called upon Germany to destroy; whether any of these engines are capable of being used for other than naval purposes; and whether the Allies will see that Germany is not called upon to destroy engines capable of being used for industrial purposes?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It has been decided to leave the engines at the disposal of the German Government on the understanding that they can be used for commercial purposes only. To ensure that this is actually the case, the German Government has been asked to report the actual employment of these engines not later than 31st March, 1921.

Sir F. HALL: Is Germany going to pay for these engines?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not understand what my hon. Friend means.

Sir F. HALL: The engines were to be destroyed under the Peace terms. If these engines are not going to be destroyed but are going to be handed over to Germany for industrial purposes, ought not Germany, under the circumstances, to pay for them?

Mr. BILLING: Have the Government considered the advisability of taking over these engines for our own commercial work, having regard to the fact that they use crude oil, by which great economies can be effected?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps I had better have notice of that.

TRADE UNIONS, AMALGAMATION.

Mr. W. THORNE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the number of amalgamations that are taking place between soap manufacturers and tobacco manufacturers and other big
firms, which will prevent healthy competition; if he is aware that it is easy for such big firms to amalgamate, but that when one or more trade unions want to amalgamate they have to take a vote of the members, 50 per cent. of the total membership have to vote, and they have to obtain 20 per cent. majority of those voting; and if he can see his way clear to get an alteration in the Trade Union Act so that trade unions can transfer their business in the same way that big commercial concerns do at the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to take this question. I am aware of the general tendency towards amalgamation both amongst manufacturers and trade unions. The Trade Union Amalgamation Act, 1917, does not, in my opinion, hamper trade unions in their desire to amalgamate. It does, however, provide safeguards which were considered by Parliament to be necessary at the time of the passing of the Act, and it would appear that no circumstances have arisen which would justify an Amendment on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Registrar-General knows of the difficulties placed in the way of trade unions amalgamating in consequence of the fact that it is very difficult to get 50 per cent. of the members to go to the branch committee rooms to record their votes; and if it is easy for big firms to amalgamate, why should not the same conditions apply to trade unions, so that they could amalgamate as easily?

Sir M. BARLOW: If there is any instance of difficulty, and if the hon. Member brings it to my notice, I shall be glad to see if anything can be done. When he suggests that it is easier for employers' associations to amalgamate than for trade unions, he must bear in mind that shareholders in big concerns must be in a majority, and that it would not require a majority under the Act of 1917 for trade unions.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If the Ministry of Labour take any action in this matter, will they provide for trade unions submitting themselves to the ordinary law of the land, the same as the trading organisations?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman see that neither great combines nor powerful trade unions are in a position in their own interests to tyrannise over the general public?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACTS.

COTTON.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Messrs. J. and P. Coats have during the past 12 months made a profit of over £4,000,000; whether the Committee charged with the duty of inquiring into the prices charged for cotton reported that such prices were not unreasonable; and whether, in view of the profits since made by this firm, he will invite the Committee to make further inquiry into the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The present price of sewing cotton as compared with the reduced price of cotton had already come under the notice of the Central Committee appointed under the Profiteering Acts, and is now being investigated by the Standing Committee on Trusts

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the cotton industry always take what is known as the long view in regard to raising prices, and the short view as far as reduction is concerned?

Sir R. HORNE: That seems to me to be a wise business policy.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that most of Messrs. Coats' business is carried on abroad, and that the amount they pay to this country in the way of taxation is vastly larger than the whole of the profits that are earned in this country; and if that is so, why should they be so much harassed?

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. BRIANT: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the remaining Reports of the Committees which are inquiring into the question of building materials may be expected?

Sir R. HORNE: I understand that the Sectional Committees investigating
Cement and Mortar and Light Castings have concluded the taking of evidence, and I hope to receive their reports at an early date. The Stone, Bricks and Clay-ware Sectional Committee are still taking evidence, and I am unable to say when their remaining reports will be received. Every effort compatible with the necessity of obtaining full and accurate information is being made to hasten these inquiries.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that municipal building has been going on now for 18 months and that the cost of it has nearly doubled by the combines that have been set up to exploit the Government in these building materials, and is there any hope of a Report being received in sufficient time for the Government to act before the municipal enterprises have gone bankrupt?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I should require a detailed question from my hon. Friend before I could answer that. All I can say is this—by way of reassuring him—that the Report of the first Committee, dealing with the primary needs, was to the effect that there was no profiteering in them. The Committee that is now sitting is considering the more subsidiary materials.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain how it is that cement has gone up from 38s. 6d. a ton to £5 8s. 6d. a ton?

Commander Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether it is not a fact that in certain cases manufacturers are sending cement that is badly needed here abroad, because they can get a better price for it, and does not that account for the rise in price here?

Sir R. HORNE: There is a certain amount of cement going abroad at the present time at a higher price than is obtained here. I know my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that in not charging the full market world price to the homo consumer a cetain sacrifice is being made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, it is perfectly plain that where the producer is not exacting the full world price of a commodity, he is to that extent relieving the person who consumes at home, and while prices are high,
it must be remembered that costs are infinitely higher to-day than they were before the War.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon Gentleman tell mo one case where a British cement firm has refused to export up to the total amount of the export business offered, and is it not a fact that we only get the residue of what they cannot export, and that for that we have to pay £5 8s. 6d. a ton?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation of the titanic rise in cement?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: When the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was no profiteering in connection with cement—

Sir R. HORNE: I did not state that.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so, but was he referring to the men who made cement prior to the War at a price of 21s. and a profit, or to those who were making it prior to the War at a cost of over 35s. and no profit?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the supplementary questions which are now being put only exhibit the fact that one had better ask for notice. I always try to answer a question as fully as I can, but obviously I was misunderstood. I did not state that there had been no profiteering in cement. What I said was that the first Report of the Committee dealing with building materials was to the effect that there was not any profiteering, but that was dealing with bricks. The Committee dealing with cement is still sitting, and has not yet reported, and my hon. Friend is erroneous in assuming that I suggested there was no profiteering in regard to cement. As to that, I do not know; I await the Report of the Committee.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay down what is profiteering?

Mr. KILEY: As the Committee have been sitting for something like ten months, cannot something be done to expedite their Report?

Sir R. HORNE: I endeavour to expedite these Reports to the fullest extent in my power, but again I beg hon. Members to remember that the people
who are giving these services to the State are giving them gratuitously and in the intervals of their own business. Obviously, no Report is worth while unless it is given by men who know enough of the business to make their Reports such as can be received with confidence, and you must not push these people too hard. I will do my best to get the Report as quickly as possible, and I hope the House will have some patience in the matter.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report presented by the Home Office Committee on Workmen's Compensation has been considered by the Government; and whether it is intended to present this Session a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Acts on the lines indicated in the Report?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I am asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Home Secretary, who would refer the hon. Member to the answers he gave to similar questions on the 26th October and the 9th instant. He regrets it will not be possible to introduce a Bill on this subject this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport what part the then deputy general manager of the North Eastern Railway took prior to the outbreak of war in the negotiations which led to the 1914 railway agreement?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The question refers to myself. The Board of Trade records show that the first meeting between that Department and the railway companies to negotiate the 1914 Agreement was held on 31st July, 1914; that I was present at that meeting only, and that I resigned from the Railway Executive Committee forthwith, and took no further part in the negotiations.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the
principles finally embodied in the Railway Agreement were sketched out at that original meeting?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I cannot remember what happened at the meeting of 31st July, but I am quite sure there were many subsequent meetings when the whole question was discussed.

RAILWAY RATES (PIT WOOD).

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in the recent revision of railway rates for goods traffic, the rates for coal were increased by 100 per cent. plus 6d. per ton, subject to a maximum increase of 4s. per ton, where as the rates for pit wood were increased by 100 per cent., plus 9d. per ton, without any maximum; whether this works out in practice at an increase of, approximately, 50 per cent. for coal and 105 per cent. for pit wood; what is the reason for this discrimination against the timber - growing industry; and whether, in view of the desirability of increasing the production of timber in this country and the efforts which the Government is otherwise making to promote afforestation in the national interest, he will take steps to remove this discrimination?

Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The percentage of increase on coal traffic as a whole has been estimated to be, approximately, 103 per cent., and for traffic in Class C, which includes pit wood, 106½ per cent., while the percentage for all traffics is 112 per cent. A separate figure for pit wood is not available. There is no discrimination shown between timber and other comparable traffics, and I regret that I am unable to see my way to depart exceptionally from the recommendations of the Rates Advisory Committee in favour of timber growers. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the whole question of Railway Rates is now under consideration by that Committee.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in large areas in Scotland the freights, respectively, for coal and pitwood produced there represent an increase of about 50 per cent. in the case of coal and over 100 per cent. in the case of pit wood?

Sir E. GEDDES: There will certainly be cases where you can pick out individual rates of that kind, but on the whole the increase for coal and timber is less than that for other goods.

EDINBURGH OFFICE (EX-SERVICE WOMEN).

Major HILLS: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Edinburgh Branch of his Department recently refused the suggestion of the Ministry of Labour that it should supply an expert ex-Service woman to fill a temporary vacancy, and that, consequently, the Labour Ministry had to supply an ex-Service youth of 23 years of age of the name of Lipetz, and of Russian parentage, this boy not having been a pre-War typist, but having had only six months' clerical experience in 1914 with a firm which could have reinstated him; and whether he can state upon what grounds such preference is given to an ex-Service man of alien origin able to find other work over the many skilled ex-Service women of British origin out of work in Edinburgh?

Sir E. GEDDES: In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of which the Eight Hon. the Earl of Lytton is Chairman, preference is given by the Ministry of Transport to ex-service men in the engagement of staff. The vacancy in question was for a temporary male clerk and the Ministry of Labour were accordingly requested by the local officer of this Ministry in Edinburgh to supply a suitable ex-service man. The selection of candidates for consideration rests with the Ministry of Labour. It is understood that Mr. Lipetz is a British subject; that he has lived in Edinburgh since early childhood, that he served throughout the War in the Scottish Horse, and that he is in receipt of a disablement pension.

Major HILLS: Is it not a fact that Lord Lytton's Committee especially recommended that ex-service women should receive equal treatment with ex-service men?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I do not know, but this was a vacancy for an ex-service man.

LONDON ROAD TRAFFIC.

Mr. GILBERT: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the committee set
up by his Department, representing the London County Council and the motor omnibus combine in London, for the purpose of arranging fares and preventing unnecessary competition between tramcars and omnibuses, has made any report to his Department, or if he expects them to report to him as regards its decisions; and will he report to the House any conclusions this committee agrees to?

Sir E. GEDDES: The committee to which the hon. Member refers was not set up by me. As a result of a conference between representatives of the London County Council and the Underground group of railways, which I arranged by request, it was decided by the two parties to set up the committee on which representatives of both sides would sit to discuss the relationship between L.C.C. Tramways and other forms of London traffic with the object of seeing whether it was possible to arrive at an agreement for co-ordinating and improving transport facilities in London. I suggested an outside chairman, but both parties requested that I should allow an official of the Ministry to act. The committee will not report to me. My only function is that, as requested, I brought the two parties together and found a chairman to preside over their deliberations.

Mr. GILBERT: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic to set up an authority to control the traffic in the greater Metropolitan area; and, if so, can he state when the Bill will be brought in?

Sir PARK GOFF: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the public disappointment at the delay in the production of the promised Bill creating a traffic authority in London; and whether, as the need increases daily, he can accelerate the preparation of the masure and ensure its introduction before Christmas?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am unable to state whether it will be possible to introduce this Bill during this Session. It is now being drafted, and will be considered by the Cabinet when it is ready. In this connection I would refer to the reply-
given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith North on the 11th of this month. I am sending the hon. Members copies of that reply and the reply referred to therein.

Viscount CURZON: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the experiment of painting or otherwise marking parallel lines on the roadways of the more congested streets for the guidance of traffic of varying speeds has ever been considered; and, if not, whether a trial will be given to such an idea?

Sir E. GEDDES: The suggestion has been carefully considered on several occasions by the Metropolitan Police authorities, but under existing conditions it is not regarded as practicable.

Mr. GILBERT: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any applications from London road authorities for grants towards the cost of maintenance of main roads carrying through traffic; whether such applications have been granted and, if so, to what extent; has any proposal been made by his Department towards helping road authorities finance loans for the same purpose; and whether, in view of this kind of work being suitable for the unemployed, he can make any statement giving approximately the money to be spent on construction of the new proposed arterial roads and on the maintenance of other roads in London?

Sir ERIC GEDDES: Applications have recently been received from several Metropolitan Borough Councils for assistance from the Road Improvement Fund towards the cost of strengthening and repairing roads carrying through traffic, and grants amounting to £125,149 and loans of £77,724 have been indicated. Schemes have also been discussed with other Metropolitan authorities and favourable consideration promised on the receipt of details of the works proposed. In reply to the last part of the question, I may say that arrangements are far advanced for putting in hand the construction of five or six sections of arterial roads within the London County Council area. It is proposed to make grants up to 50 per cent. of the initial cost of construction of these roads, and in many cases assistance will be given by way of loan
towards the remaining half of the cost. It is impossible at present to give an estimate of the total grants to be made towards arterial roads in the Metropolitan area, but it will certainly amount to a very considerable sum. As regards maintenance, when the proposals with regard to the classification of roads are complete, the Metropolitan boroughs will receive assistance towards the cost of maintenance of classified roads in the same way as other highway authorities.

MOTOR CAR DRIVERS (TEST).

Sir FRANCIS BLAKE: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that when the driver of a motor car is charged in Court with causing material or bodily injuries it is frequently made a ground of defence or mitigation that he has suffered from shell shock or from some injury likely to affect his nerves; and whether, for the protection of the public, he will consider the desirability of issuing Regulations imposing upon local authorities the duty of making inquiries as to the history of applicants for drivers' licences and for the passing of a test of fitness to drive a car or other mechanically propelled vehicle?

Sir E. GEDDES: The points raised in my hon. Friend's question are being considered among other matters connected with the regulation of road vehicles. Legislation would be required.

Mr. BILLING: Has not the time come when anybody desiring to drive a motor car should pass some sort of examination?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the matter has been referred to a Committee, whatever my own personal views are, I would rather get their report first.

Mr. BILLING: If the Committee recommend that there should be a test of fitness, will the right hon. Gentleman adopt it?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would rather see what the Committee recommend.

Sir F. BLAKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in actions for causing personal injuries the defence which is continually being set up is that the driver suffers from shell-shock or some other, injury likely to affect his nerves?

FURNESS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. HIGHAM: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the fact that five new engines were ordered by the Furness Railway Company at Government expense; whether he will agree to this charge on the Government subsidy; whether it is a common practice for the railway companies to purchase new equipment with Government money; and, if so, what action has he taken in the matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I learn from a speech of the chairman of the Furness Railway Company that five new locomotives have been provided by that company on revenue account. The Furness Railway Company has no arrears of maintenance to make up under the appropriate head in their accounts; nevertheless in respect of the first nine months of the current year it has debited to the Government under this head £120,000, as against £20,000 spent in the same period of 1913; after allowing for increased cost at present prices there is an excess debit of £63,263. The Government investigator, when dealing with the accounts of this company, will pay particular attention to this excess charged. As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee under Lord Colwyn is reporting upon these financial arrangements.

Mr. HIGHAM: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "excess debit"?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is excess over what was debited in the basic year of 1913, after the 1913 figures had been adjusted to the present-day prices.

Mr. HIGHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a Paper on the Table of the House giving a list of these debits?

Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether before the coal strike the railway rates then in existence were or were not sufficient to wipe out the Government subsidy?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have undertaken, as soon as the accounts showing the result of the increased charges are in, to communicate them to the House. I gave that undertaking a fortnight ago. With regard to laying a Paper, I do not know what my hon. Friend wants, but if he will confer with me, I will give him all the information I can.

ITALIAN STEAMSHIP "ANCONA."

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now say whether the Italian steamship "Ancona" was stopped at sea on her way to Novorossisk and taken to Batoum by British warships; and why we are interfering with trade between Russia and Italy in this way?

The PRIME MINISTER: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated on Monday last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Glanville), the Italian steamer "Ancona" has not been interfered with in any way by His Majesty's ships. The Italian authorities have no knowledge of this alleged incident, and state that the "Ancona" stopped off Batoum to await orders from the agents respecting the discharge of her cargo, and anchored there on receipt of these orders.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this ship was laden with 20,000,000 liras worth of goods for Novorossisk, and was prevented from going there, taken to Batum and ordered to Kerch; that the captain protested and said he must go to Italy; and that a Note has been addressed to His Majesty's Government by the Italian Royal Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The telegram states that "the Italian naval authorities here"—I think that means Constantinople—"can give no explanation of the rumour. The captain of the 'Ancona' has been personally interviewed, and states that he has never met a British man-of-war."

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the great hardship caused to country wine merchants by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) Order of the 17th February, 1916, Section B, paragraph (4), Clause (e), stating that no person shall either by himself or any servant or agent take or solicit orders for intoxicating liquor except on licensed premises; and whether he will consider the mitigation of this Clause in connec-
tion with the forthcoming licensing legislation?

Mr. PARKER: The Home Secretary has been asked to reply to this question, and I am requested by him to say that the Order to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is part of a series of provisions which will come up for review in the event of the Bill which is now before the House being passed into law. In the meantime, he cannot add anything to previous answers which have been given on the same point.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Central Control Board that the only effect of this absurd Regulation is to compel people to frequent public-houses?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MARTIAL LAW (MURDERS).

Mr. HIGHAM: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of immediately placing those towns or counties in Ireland where the murder of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary is constantly taking place under martial law, and send to those areas sufficient troops so that law and order may prevail?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the previous statements on this subject. The authorities in Ireland already possess very wide powers, and I am satisfied that effective use is being made of them.

Mr. HIGHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that last Saturday afternoon three members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were foully murdered, and does he propose to take more drastic action to see that these men are properly protected?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am too painfully aware of that circumstance. I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that every step that can possibly be taken is being adopted by the authorities there.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not quite evident that the policy bas don force has completely and hopelessly broken down, and is it not probable that the pacification of Ireland could be better
secured by the application of liberal principles rather than the principles of militarism?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not agree with my Noble Friend that it is evident that a policy based on force has failed. Every law is based to a large extent upon force. Unless a law can be enforced, that law must be futile. We are simply enforcing law in Ireland, and I believe we are doing it successfully. It is perfectly true now that the police, instead of remaining inside their barracks, as they had to do until we were ready two or three months ago, are going all over the country and enforcing the law, they are running much greater risk, and consequently there are heavier casualties,; but we have overwhelming evidence that the power and authority of the law are being established throughout the whole country.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that a lawful policy will be enforced in a lawful manner?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the burning and sacking of towns, creameries and farms in enforcing any sort of law before God or man?

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman prefer the murder of police?

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Sir F. HALL: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government have been notified of the proposal to send a Labour Commission to Ireland to investigate, under Sinn Fein auspices, the origin, nature, and extent of the reprisals by police and military; what were the numbers of police and soldiers murdered in Ireland between the beginning of 1917 and the date when the first so-called reprisal took place; whether, during such intervening period, any request was made for facilities for a Labour Commission to investigate the conditions obtaining in Ireland; and, if in the present case a Commission visits Ireland, will he offer its members an opportunity of mixing, unidentified, with the soldiers and constabulary in the performance of their ordinary duties, so that the Commission may obtain an unbiassed impression of the other side of the picture?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I know nothing of any such proposal beyond what has appeared in the Press. The number of soldiers and policemen murdered between the beginning of 1917 and the middle of this year was 57. I have no knowledge of any request for facilities for an impartial investigation made prior to the latter date. It would not be practicable to adopt the course suggested in the last part of the question, but the Irish Government have always been ready to facilitate in every way possible any genuine endeavour to obtain accurate first-hand impressions of the conditions actually obtaining in Ireland.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that those who are so much, or pretend to be so much, interested in labour will embrace the opportunity contained in the last part of the question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question to the Labour party.

Mr. T. SHAW: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make a collection of mares' nests?

MURDER OF CONSTABLES, BALLYBRACK.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the House any information as to the murder of Constables Turner and Woods on the 9th November?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Constable Turner, in company with Constable Woods, was returning in plain clothes to Castleisland by train from Killarney on the evening of the 9th instant. When the train halted at Ballybrack a number of armed men appeared on the platform, having alighted from the train, and fired revolvers at the two constables through the carriage window. They then entered the carriage, dragged the wounded constables on to the platform and fired into their bodies as they lay dying. The assassins then left them for dead on the platform where their bodies were found by the stationmaster. The murderers boarded the train again, some on the engine itself, and compelled the driver to start the train. After pro-
ceeding about a mile they compelled the driver to stop the train and made their escape.

WEEK-END OUTRAGES.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman replies to a part of the question of which I had given notice in my desire to call his attention to the incidents of the week-end in Ireland. I wish further to ask him whether it is the fact that on Saturday evening a military party in pursuit of a crowd of men in Dublin shot a young girl aged 12 years, killing her almost immediately, and also wounding a five-year old girl. Will the right hon. Gentleman also give us further details, if he has received them, of the case in which two civilians are alleged to have been killed by soldiers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no information as to the last question of the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the general question as to events during the week-end, I am glad to say that in four or five counties only in the whole of Ireland were there any serious outrages during that time. In three counties, however, there were serious outrages. In reference to the Dublin affair, I have received a telegraphic report to the effect that on Saturday evening, at about a quarter past five, two military lorries were passing down Charlemont Street, near Charlemont Avenue, in Dublin, when a group of five or six young men was observed to run away. They were ordered to halt, and on failing to do so three shots were fired. I deeply regret to have to say that as a result of the firing a young girl named Annie O'Neill, aged 8 years, was killed, and another girl, named Teresa Kavanagh, was slightly wounded. The loss of this young innocent life is deplorable, but I hope the House will agree with me in the view that the responsibility does not rest upon the soldiers.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it the practice to fire on men who are running away?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Men who are ordered to halt and do not halt are fired at. I have further to state that in County Kildare Sergeant Brown and six constables proceeded to a farmer's house at Knochbounce, Athy district, which was
reported to have been fired into at 11.30 p.m. on the 13th instant. When about 50 yards from the house, about 15 men came up a side road, flashed bicycle lamps on the police, and fired three shots. The police returned five shots, wounded Thomas Haslett, a shop assistant, and William Martin, a butcher of Kilcullen, and arrested five others. There were no police casualties.
Perhaps the House will allow me to read a long telegram giving an account of an ambush at Lisvername, Co. Tipperary, on Saturday last, which resulted in the murder of four constables and the wounding of two others. There appears to have been a prolonged interchange of shots. The lorry rushed past the, ambush, none, of the crew sustaining injury, although heavily fired upon, but the steering gear was put out of action by a bullet and the lorry swerved into the ditch, where it was again subjected to a heavy fusilade from the attackers, who were estimated to number 70. The police vigorously returned the fire from the floor of the lorry, and when this became untenable they got underneath it and kept on firing. It was when in this position that Constables O'Leary, Mackesey and Bustrock received their fatal wounds. Constable O'Leary's last words were, "Carry on." During the action the petrol tank of the lorry was perforated by a bullet and the escaping petrol caught fire and dropped on to the body of Constable Mackesey, which was badly charred. One of the constables is stated to have said when the fight was over to the attackers, "You don't want to burn us, take these bodies out," and it is alleged that the attackers refused any assistance, whereupon the constable, though himself wounded, at great risk dragged out the bodies of his fallen comrades from the now burning lorry. The attackers carried off the arms of the policemen, but no ammunition, as the defenders are believed to have exhausted it before surrender. News of the ambush was conveyed to the Bansha police station by one of the less injured constables, and later four lorries packed with soldiers and police arrived from Tipperary and scoured the district. Several arrests were made. There was a house near the scene of the ambush in which it was alleged the wounded were
refused shelter. It was burned to the ground.

Mr. DEVLIN: Arising out of the answer to the first part of the question, do I understand that the military fired upon five men, missed them all, and hit a girl and a child? Do I understand that they murdered a girl and a child?

Mr. DONALD: May I ask whether we could not adopt the suggestion made by an hon. Member opposite, and let these constables have armoured cars with machine guns, so that they may have some protection? There are armoured cars in Belfast which, I am sure, are not being used.

Mr. WATERSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information in connection with the burning of the creamery at Ballymaeelligot, near Tralee, and is he aware that in addition three adjacent homesteads were burned to the ground, quantities of hay and straw were destroyed, two men were shot dead, two wounded, and seven taken prisoners, including the doctor who was attending to the wounded?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think that occurred last Friday, and by "weekend" I mean Saturday and Sunday. With reference to what is called the Ballymacelligot creamery, there was a conflict between the police and a large body of Sinn Feiners. In the conflict a number of Sinn Feiners were killed, and many others were taken prisoners.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the shooting of the two children in Dublin, is it surprising that young men run away when they see an armoured car coming in Dublin, in view of the reckless firing which is continually taking place? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] Now, Black and Tans, behave yourselves. May I ask whether it is a fact that if young men run away it is considered to be a sufficient excuse for firing at the crowd?

Mr. O'CONNOR: With reference to the very important statement which the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago, to the effect that he considered it to be the duty of the soldiers to fire when people do not halt upon command, may I ask whether he has considered the possibility of people running
away in terror, and whether there is not in many cases a risk of people being shot down who were quite innocent and who acted, not in disobedience to the order to halt, but in terror of the result of the soldier's firing?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I appreciate perfectly the situation in Ireland to-day. In many counties, though not in most, it is tragic. But when men are ordered to halt, surely, if they are innocent men, they will halt.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Is that any reason why you should shoot women?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is a great tragedy when innocent people are killed or wounded.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then why do you justify it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Unfortunately, so long as the armed forces of the Crown are liable to attack by assassins, these most unfortunate tragedies will be one of the consequences.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask how it was, when these men refused to halt and were fired upon, that none of these men were murdered, but an innocent girl and a little child were murdered? [Interruption.]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Order. Black and Tans!

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Order, yourself; you are all black, and no tan!

Mr. DEVLIN: I hope the Sultan of Turkey will read about this performance in the House of Commons to-day in connection with the murder of women and little children. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that when the military fired upon these men who were running away none of them were killed or injured or touched, whereas a young girl and a little child were killed and wounded respectively?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Baby-killers!

Mr. DEVLIN: Is this a war against women and children?

PRESENT SITUATION (DEBATE).

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether
he is prepared to give a day for a discussion on the present grave situation in Ireland, including the murder of women and children, the threatened closing down of the railways, the limitations placed upon the use of motor cars, the threatened stoppage of the mails, and other threats to create famine among the population and to bring about a complete paralysis of trade.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): There have been a good many discussions on the Irish situation lately, but at the same time the Government will welcome a discussion when the full facts have been put before the House, and will be glad to have it. We cannot have it this week, because the business has been already arranged, but, if notice be put down, I will arrange it as early as I can next week.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the operations or put an end, at all events for the present and until we have had a Parliamentary discussion of this matter, to the conspiracy for the complete destruction and devastation of Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The value of a discussion in my eye, and I am sure in the eyes of the public, is to show the absurdity of that suggestion.

CIVIL SERVICE (ADMISSION OF WOMEN).

Major HILLS: 31.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now say when the Regulations governing the admission of women to the Civil Service will be laid upon the Table?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Certain details of the draft of the Regulations still remain to be settled, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the Regulations will be laid on the Table in ample time for consideration by Members before the House rises.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

OIL FIELDS.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the concession for the further development of the Mosul
and South Kurdistan oil fields has been granted to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; and, if so, on what terms?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this question is likely to be decided as to who is to develop these oilfields?

The PRIME MINISTER: First of all, we have to establish an Arab authority, and it will then be for them, on the advice of the Mandatory, to choose their own method of developing the oil fields.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND.

Viscount CURZON: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when the official account of the battle of Jutland will be published; and if he can give an assurance that Sir Julian Corbett will have no part in the publication?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to reply to this question. It is hoped that publication will be possible within a month. As the Paper will consist solely of official records, Sir Julian Corbett will have no part in the publication.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or the Prime Minister, whether the publication will include the original Report upon which the Official Report issued to the public was based, and whether he is aware that the first Report issued to the British public was that we had sustained a grave defeat, in consequence of which over £16,000,000 was made on the American Exchange within 24 hours, that a great deal of that came from this country, and will he take steps—

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

HON. MEMBERS: Who made it?

Mr. BILLING: Rothschild and Waterloo.

NAVAL OPERATIONS (DESPATCHES).

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the despatches in full
relating to the escape of the "Goeben," the Scarborough raid, and the battle of the Dogger Bank have been as yet published; and, if not, will he give an assurance that they will be published in due course, with any relevant information of an authentic character which may come to light from German sources?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have been asked to reply to this question. So far as the near future is concerned, it is not proposed that documents in regard to these incidents shall be published. The first of them has already been, and the other two will very soon be, dealt with in the Naval History of the War.

Viscount CURZON: I did not quite hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but am I right in assuming that in due course, on some day in the future, the full despatches relating to these will be published?

Sir J. CRAIG: I would not look so far into the future. It is not intended to publish them at the present moment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are details of these available for use at the Staff College, Greenwich?

Sir J. CRAIG: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.

ARMENIA.

Mr. NEWBOULD: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the present position in Armenia?

Mr. KILEY: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in Armenia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Our latest information is that the Armenians, having lost Kars and Alexandropol, have signed an armistice with the Nationalist Turks, and that hostilities ceased on 7th November. Peace negotiations are presumed to be proceeding.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this mean that there is contact between Mustapha Pasha and the Bolshevists, and what is the use of our
attempting to prevent that contact by naval means in the Black Sea?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is a later Private Notice answer which will throw some light upon that.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I ask my Private Notice question, of which I sent a copy to you, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night? I understand that the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs is prepared to answer it—indeed, he has already answered part of it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not received it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime, Minister whether his attention has been called to the present position of the Republic of Armenia; whether that Republic has been invaded and in large measure occupied by superior forces of Turks from the South-West, and Bolsheviks from the North-East; whether it has been forced to accept terms dictated to it; whether the Turks and the Bolsheviks have thus established a junction; whether they are working together to create trouble for Great Britain in the East; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to protect our own interests, as well as to carry out the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres and the promises repeatedly made to the Armenians on the strength of which they acted as our Allies during the War?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: To the answer which I have already given to another question this afternoon I can only add that His Majesty's Government have no information that any Bolshevik forces co-operated with the Nationalist Turks or that the latter were numerically superior to the Armenian forces opposed to them. Direct territorial communication appears to have been established between Bolshevik Azerbaijan and Anatolia, but the railway passes via Tiflis, and does not in any case extend into Anatolia. Any ultimate menace to British interests in the East from co-operation between Nationalist Turks and Russian Bolsheviks will be met if and when it arises. Every effort is being made to secure ratification by Turkey of the Treaty of Sèvres.

Mr. T. SHAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in Trehizond, which is presumably under the jurisdiction of the Kemalists, there is a
Russian mission which is said to be in power in the town, and whether, if that be the case, it is not evident that between the Nationalist Turks and the Bolshevists there is an alliance?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I supplement that question by asking whether, in any negotiations with the representatives of Soviet Russia, the British authorities will make it an essential condition of any understanding between them and the Soviet Government that Bolshevist Forces shall not help the Turks to continue the butchering and the enslaving of the Armenians?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no exact information with regard to the situation in Trebizond other than that already given to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) may be quite sure that the consideration which he mentions will be in the minds of the Government.

Mr. T. SHAW: May I say that I have been in Trebizond, and have seen the Russians.

CHEMICAL WARFARE.

Lieut-Commander HILTON YOUNG: asked the Prime Minister whether a War Office committee has been established to promote the development of chemical warfare; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for this, in view of the provision of Article 171 of the Treaty of Versailles, by which the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials, and devices, is prohibited as well as of materials intended for the manufacture, storage, and use of the same?

Mr. HOGGE: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the War Office to set up a Committee for the development to the utmost extent of both the offensive and defensive aspects of chemical warfare was approved by the Cabinet; and, if so, whether the Cabinet decided that the investigations of the Committee were to be governed by the declaration of the Council of the League of Nations, to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council assented, that the Council of the League could not legitimise the use of poison gas and must seek means to prevent its manufacture?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole subject of chemical warfare has been under careful consideration by the Cabinet during the past year. It was decided on 4th March that the question should be raised at the Council of the League of Nations. It is, I am sure, obvious to the House that this is a question on which our action must depend on that of other nations. It was realised therefore, that, as other countries have been continuing to develop this method of warfare, the safety of our fighting services would be seriously jeopardised by lack of similar development in this country, and it was decided on 12th May that, pending a pronouncement on the subject by the League, the fighting services should continue their researches and experiments. The War Office Committee referred to has been constituted as part of the organisation necessary for the continuation of these studies. The whole subject will, of course, have to be reconsidered when the Council of the League of Nations has made its pronouncement.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be laid before the Council for a new decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I rather think it has been considered already, but no decision has been arrived at. I am not quite sure whether it is on the agenda for Geneva.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that under no circumstances will these experiments cease, seeing we have seen in the last War that, although there was an official prohibition, that we were suddenly launched in the midst of these gases?

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate this in order that we may not do anything before ascertaining the facts; will he see, as a matter of fact, that some sort of a decision is come to by the United Council before arranging too big a staff and spending too much money on what is the improbable event of an immediate war?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think this country can take unnecessary risks. There are other powerful countries not in the League at all. We must bear that in mind. In certainly one of these countries experiments are going on at the
present time. I can give no further information as to action until a resolution is arrived at.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it possible to prevent these experiments?

Mr. T. THOMSON: May I ask whether the Prime Minister retracts the advice he gave a short time ago that those who believe in the League must trust it most?

The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously that is so; but the League has taken no action. You cannot trust the League in respect of something which has not yet been decided upon.

Major EDWARDS: Does our action depend upon the action of other nations; is it not that their action depends upon ours?

The PRIME MINISTER: You must have complete agreement. I do not think that a country like ours, after the painful experience of the last five years, can take unnecessary risks. The nations must march together.

FRANCO-BELGIAN AGREEMENT.

Major BARNES: 45.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the French and Belgian Governments have communicated to the League of Nations the correspondence exchanged between the two Governments concerning the agreement of 17th September last, but have not disclosed the actual text of the agreement; whether such communication can be considered equivalent to registration of the agreement with the League, as required by the covenant; and, if not, whether the British representative on the Council of the League will be instructed to bring forward the necessity for the registration of the text of the agreement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is, I understand, the intention of the Governments named to communicate the correspondence to the League of Nations. With regard to the second part of the question, this seems to me to be a matter for the League to judge. The answer to the last part is in the negative.

Major BARNES: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what opinion has been put forward by the British representatives
on that matter? Will they support any movement of the League in the direction I have indicated?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The principle upon which we appoint our delegates to the League is not that they go with mandates, but we assume that they are capable of exercising their own judgment.

Major BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the general feeling of the Cabinet with regard to this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been no expression of the general feeling of the Cabinet on this matter.

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an expression of opinion now?

ELECTORAL REGISTER.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: 46.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in order to save expense to the National Exchequer and to ratepayers throughout the country, the Government will introduce and endeavour to pass into law without delay a short Bill to provide that for the next five years there shall be only one register of electors in each year instead of two?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the large saving likely to result from the proposal, the Government would be glad to see it adopted, and if it commends itself generally to the House they would be prepared to introduce legislation accordingly as soon as possible.

MARSHAL FOCH.

Sir F. HALL: 47.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any information to the effect that early in 1919 the French Government was approached by the heads of two Allied Governments with a view to obtaining the replacement of Marshal Foch by another French general; and whether the British Government had knowledge of, or supported, this request?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have no information as to the first part of the question; and as regards the second, it is well known that the British Government used its influence to the
fullest extent to secure the appointment of Marshal Foch to the supreme command in France.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate statements circulated in the Press of this country and on the other side of the Channel, and will he take steps to stop this in order to prove our undoubted feeling of confidence in France?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government has a great deal to do as it is, but if we undertook to correct all the misleading statements that appeared in the Press there would be no time for anything else.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman prosecute the Press in this country for publishing false statements as is being done in the case of newspapers in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the Law Officers undertook such a task I think they would be employed very largely on useless work.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do you carry on prosecutions in Ireland because you are absolutely certain of obtaining convictions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, but because we think they are necessary.

CYPRUS.

Major BARNES: 62.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cypriotes have been officially notified to the effect that the British Government refuse to permit the union of Cyprus with Greece; whether there is an unanimous desire on the part of the Greek islanders, who form the immense majority of the population, for union with the motherland; and, if so, why the British Government has acted in a manner contrary to the principle of self-determination?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): By direction of the Secretary of State, I informed the Cyprus deputation, on 26th October, that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to assent to the union of Cyprus with Greece. His Majesty's Government is not aware that there is any unanimous desire on the part of the Greek population to change their present allegiance under which they have attained unexampled prosperity; but even if it were otherwise, account would
have to be taken of the views of the large Turkish minority, who would be violently opposed to the union of the island with Greece.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether it is not the fact that ever since the occupation of this island by the British authorities protests have been made continuously from every section of the population, except a comparatively small minority of Mohammedans in the island; and whether there is any justification whatever for the idea that the Greek Government, which has already a large body of Mohammedan subjects under its control, would treat the minority in Cyprus in any spirit but that of justice and equality?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is there any reason to suppose that any large proportion of the Cypriote population is satisfied with British rule?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The minority is a very considerable one. It amounts to something like 25 per cent. of the whole population. I am afraid I cannot say with any certainty whether protests have been received ever since 1878, and I should be very doubtful of that statement. Certainly none of the information we have indicates any general dissatisfaction with British rule, or that the movement in favour of union with Greece extends to more than the limited minority I have mentioned.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not an understanding arrived at with M. Venizelos that in the case of Greece entering into the War she should have Cyprus?

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cypriotes have no racial affinity whatever with the Greeks, that Cyprus has never been under Greece since the dawn of history, and that there are, therefore, no grounds for joining them to Greece?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As to the first part of the question, only an anthropologist could decide; as to the second part, Cyprus was never historically part of Greece.

PERSIA.

Mr. WATERSON: 66.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether the recent Government crisis in Persia arose as a result of the British Minister's intervention on questions connected with the Persian Army; and whether he can make a statement as to the present political situation there?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The recent Cabinet crisis in Persia arose from the unwillingness of the former Persian Cabinet to carry out the decision of the Shah to dismiss the Russian officers in command of the Persian Cossack Division. A new Cabinet is in process of formation and the present political situation in Persia appears to be normal. It is difficult to make at all a complete statement on a very complicated situation within the limis of a reply to a Parliamentary question. I understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has undertaken to make such a statement in another place.

ITALY AND KEMALIST TURKS.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Italian subjects have been supplying the Krmalist Turks with arms and money, or either; and whether the Italian Government has taken any and, if so, what steps to prevent their doing so?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have received many reports of this nature. They have been brought to the notice of the Italian Government, who have categorically denied them.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ALL-RUSSIAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

Mr. RAPER: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the exact status of the All-Russian Co-operative Society and its relation to the Russian Bolshevik delegation in London?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The company were registered on the 11th June, 1920, under the Companies Acts, 1908–1917, with a capital of £15,000, and the directors are as stated in the reply to the hon. Member on the 26th October. I understand that the society have acted for the Russian Trade Delegation in respect of certain commercial transactions for the eventual supply of goods to Russia.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask whether, in view of the very doubtful character of at least one director of this company, the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to inquire into its personnel and composition, and the work they are carrying on?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will make inquiry as to the personnel. I think we are fairly well informed on the matter.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Lancaster (Middleton and Prestwich Division) in the room of Sir WILLIAM RYLAND DENT ADKINS, K.C. (Recorder of Birmingham).—[Captain Guest.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major Cope, Mr. Greer, Major Hills, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Kenyon, Major Newton, and Brigadier-General Surtees; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Briant, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Lorden, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, and Colonel Lambert Ward.

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee E: Captain Reginald Terrell.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee E (in respect of the Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill [Lords]): Sir John Baird.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [GRANTS].

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 10th November.]

[MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Housing of the People, Public Health and Local Government, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of giants under Section 1 of The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister of Health may in any special case allow, and in respect of houses provided with the approval of the Minister of Health by local authorities for persons employed by them."—[Dr. Addison.]

4.0 P.M.

Major O'NEILL: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment down to this Financial Resolution, and I want to ask whether it is in order. The object of it is to provide that this subsidy to private builders may be granted in the rural districts of Ireland. At present the subsidy is granted in the rural districts of England, but it cannot be granted in Ireland, and, unless an Amendment of this kind be made in the Financial Resolution, it will be impossible to discuss the matter in Committee on the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is not in order. It is an extension and not a restriction of the Money Resolution. I am not able to give a verdict on the question whether the point can be covered in Committee on the Bill, not knowing exactly what is the proposal.

Major O'NEILL: I do not think it necessarily follows that the acceptance of this Amendment would mean an extension of the amount of money granted I understand that there is the specific amount of £15,000,000 allocated to these grants, and there might be a considerable balance available for the purpose which I have at heart. The Amendment therefore might involve no further charge.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be a matter to be dealt with by the Chairman of the Committee before which the Bill goes.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member is what we call a reasoned Amendment. That is not in order in a Committee of this kind. It is equivalent to a negative of the whole Resolution, and the hon. Member will carry out his purpose by voting against the Resolution as a whole.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not intend to move the Amendment which stands in my name—to leave out the words, "and in respect of houses provided with the approval of the Minister of Health by local authorities for persons employed by them"—because, if I were to do so, I am afraid that it would limit the discussion. I hope, therefore, to leave that duty to my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), whose name with mine is down on the Paper. This Resolution excites very wide, deep and wholly exceptional interest. My position with regard to it is not identical with that of many hon. Members whom I see sitting opposite. I would remind them that on the Second Reading of the Bill I took a line of rather general support of the measure, subject to cautious reservations and safeguards. To-day we are dealing with the finance of the Bill, and I propose to draw the attention of the Committee to the White Paper with which we have been furnished. No. 1, the estimate of the Exchequer expenditure, dealing with Clauses 2 and 6, by no means gives any idea of what the cost of this legislation is likely to be. The real cost is wrapped up in the remaining Clauses of the Bill.
I would ask Members to remind themselves of the White Paper, Part 2, so as to have in their minds some indication of what are the proposals. I do not propose to go through them in detail, but, taking by way of example Clause 4, it enables the local authority carrying out a scheme under the Housing Acts at the same time to construct sewage and other works consequent on the housing scheme. It might be necessary in the case of such housing scheme being outside the boundaries of the authority financing it to execute sewage and other works of a similar category on a scale larger than
might be immediately necessary for the houses proposed to be set up. Therefore, borrowing powers are given in connection with those large works, although they may be outside the boundaries of the authority building the houses. Then it also gives a very remarkable authority. It gives power to raise money and to capitalise the interest on exceptional charges which would be running in an area from which no revenue would be produced to meet them. Under normal circumstances, that would be regarded as pretty rickety finance. All the other clauses which are indicated in the White Paper and several other clauses of the Bill necessarily impose large charges, although under the Bill they are not mandatory charges. I do not think that there is one obligatory charge on the local authority. They are optional charges. Of course, once they start a building scheme them are consequential statutory obligations which they must undertake.
I am not going to attempt to debate—it would be entirely out of Order—the actual merits of the Bill on the Motion before the Committee, but I do affirm that the fact that borrowing powers are set up here in addition to the borrowing powers already held by local authorities will have a very seriously detrimental effect upon the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise further money from the nation by way of funding his debt, and his effort will have a correspondingly depressing effort upon the local authorities in their endeavours to raise money for their local purposes. It is undoubtedly the duty of the Committee of this House to get before them a survey of every legislative proposal, not only as it affects the Exchequer, but also as it affects the local rates, because, after all, you are dealing with the same person. The taxpayer is the ratepayer. I am quite conscious that to branch out too widely into a discussion of that kind would be to try your patience perhaps a little too much; but I do ask you, in view of the very great and general interest which is taken in this topic, to allow me, founding myself upon the actual White Papers produced by the Government, to draw the attention of the Committee to a broad general point which I suggest to be of the utmost financial national importance at the present time. I would ask the attention of the Committee to Command Paper 1016, which was referred to in some little detail by my
right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when he introduced the Bill. I shall confine what I have to say with regard to that paper to a few general broad statements, which I hope will not weary, though I am afraid they will try, the Committee.
What was the actual position with regard to the total raised by these local authorities from rates in 1914? There will be found on page 5 a sum of £71,276,158. In 1919 they raised £84,500,000, and the White Paper goes on to state that they are not able to bring that figure down to date for the current year ending 31st March with regard to the whole of the authorities in England and Wales. But in this paper they have very efficiently produced an estimate founded on figures furnished to them by 18 typical local authorities, which bring the position right down to the current half year of local finance. Let me give two or three examples of what that extraordinarily dangerous, indeed menacing increase of rates amounts to. Taking the Metropolitan Borough of Islington. In 1919 the rate was 8s. 3d. in the £.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether it is in order on this Resolution to go into such details on questions of rates, which do not come and could not be made to come within the scope of the Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN: This Resolution is supported by a White Paper issued by the Government—not, by the way, the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman is just now quoting from, but one which proceeds to deal with a number of causes and their effect on the rates under the heading of Memorandum on the Financial Provisions. I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to give certain illustrations to support his claim that, in addition to the charge on the Exchequer, a statement ought to be supplied of the effects of the Bill upon the rates. If he keeps to that course I think it is within the Resolution as supported by the White Paper.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is the point I was very shortly coming to. Take the county borough of Halifax, with which you, Sir, have some acquaintance. The rate there was 11s. 4d. in 1919 and to-day it is 19s. 9d. Warrington was 9s. 4d., today it is 21s. Taking the whole of that as disclosed there it shows an increase between 1919 and 1921 of no less than 73 per
cent. Applying that to the broad national figures to which I have alluded, assuming that that 73 per cent. is fairly representative of England and Wales as a whole— there, may be some exaggeration but not much—this is the result, that the total revenue raised from the rates in the current year will be, instead of £84,500,000 as in 1919, £146,185,000. In addition to that the total expenditure from the Exchequer and all the rates in 1919 was £194,360,000. Applying that 73 per cent. of increase, that amounts to no less a sum for this year than £310,976,000 spent by local authorities. Those are staggering figures, because they show that there is over £100,000,000 more spent by local authorities this year than the total Imperial Exchequer of this country in 1914. There is an increased expenditure of well over 100 per cent. in local authorities' rates and all these permanent charges to which I have referred since 1914. This is the point I wish more especially to urge upon the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These remarkable increases are not stopping. There must be much greater increases in the immediate future. I am suggesting that the time has now arrived—and this Resolution is not an unfit opportunity for suggesting it—when this House should exercise the same check, by way of a Money Resolution, over increased charges on the citizen in his capacity of ratepayer as it does over the Executive when they propose to raise taxes from him as a taxpayer. The whole question of local and Imperial finance has become so absolutely interdependent, the grants have become mixed up in such a way that only very expert accountants and expert municipal authorities can really disentangle them, and they find it difficult. I suggest that it would be much to the national advantage if, in connection with this Bill, an estimate was made as to what will be the general cost to the ratepayer of the new powers which are sought to be given to him, which although in some respects not mandatory are nevertheless substantially so. The local authorities cannot really refuse. Some are backward and some are forward, but all, at any rate, make an attempt.
That is the main point I sought to lay before the Committee and I suggest to the Government that they should consult Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you, Sir, unless I
very much mistake the feeling of the Committee, would be able to convey to Mr. Speaker an almost unanimous expression of opinion that the time has arrived when in Bills which are laid before the House for its consideration in the future there should be either italicised or in some other way clearly marked all those Clauses where charges fall upon the local authority as well as when they fall on the Exchequer. Whether it might follow the usual machinery of a Money Resolution or not, I am not particular. All I am asking for is that, since these charges amount to such menacing proportions and the whole of local and Imperial finance has now become so inextricably mixed up, insofar as we possibly can, this House, before it gives the Government any authority to lay any fresh charges upon local authorities, should at any rate know what it is committing the country to. I am not pressing it one inch more than that to-day. I am not discussing the merits at all. I am only taking this opportunity, as far as I have been able to observe with the general assent of the Committee, to press a most useful reform upon the Government which would help local authorities very much and would certainly assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Standing Order 71 has always been construed by the Speaker up to now as only dealing with the question of taxes. At the same time you, Sir, will recollect that the House of Lords has no power to deal with questions of rates, and if on the Report Stage of a Bill in this House any new charge is inserted which deals with the question of any increase of rate, Mr. Speaker always refuses to put that question, and that proposal has to go back again to the Committee before he, on the Report stage, will deal with it, showing thereby that there is, notwithstanding the interpretation of Standing Order 71, more than a suspicion in the mind of this House, as carried out by Mr. Speaker in actual practice, that the Committee should have very definite control over charges on the rates, as it has over charges on the taxes. I do not move my Amendment because I hope it will be moved at a later stage, and I hope, the question now being left open, there will be a general discussion and the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to measure the real feeling of the Committee on the matters I have laid before them.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me in this matter, and pressed me to express the general view of the Government on the question which in an indirect way is raised by this Financial Resolution. First of all, as regards his suggestion, I recognise in the fullest way the necessity of something of that kind being done. I entirely agree that the Government cannot look upon expenditure from the rates as anything other that, in effect having an influence upon the whole finances of the country. It all comes out of the same pocket, and it is therefore essential that whatever control can be exercised by this House on expenditure from the rates should be exercised just as much as on general Government expenditure. As a matter of fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself have discussed this before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech. I do not think I need say to the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with me. Perhaps it would be making an exaggerated claim, in view of the attacks which are constantly made on us, if I included the whole of the Government. At all events nobody says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is responsible under extraordinarily difficult circumstances for finding the money for carrying on the work of this country, must not have a keener interest than anybody else in controlling expenditure.
As the Committee knows, it was with this feeling that, at the time I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was led, with the consent of the Prime Minister, to lay down that not only should there be a Financial Resolution, but in every case an explanatory memorandum should be laid before the House of Commons so that the House might have an opportunity for discussion. If we can exercise some control over expenditure on the rates we ought to do so. But I would utter a word of warning. Do not let us try and give an impression that the House of Commons can really control expenditure on the rates. I have had twenty years' experience of local government in London, and it is well known that before the War, the same party was never in power both in the London County Council and in the House of Commons, and that was for reasons primarily concerned with the subject we are now discussing. We cannot control the
rates, and it would be a great mistake to give the ratepayers the impression that they can get any real protection from the House of Commons. The protection must come from themselves, and I believe that the last municipal elections showed that these people are realising that the responsibility is their own, and that the control they exercise on the men selected to govern will have a practical effect upon the rates. As regards this proposal, we would like to get something of this kind, and if no better suggestion can be raised—of course we shall be glad to consider any suggestions—we will set up a Select Committee to consider in what way we can effectually exercise some control on the expenditure by the rates in the ease of Bills introduced into this House. If that commend itself to the House, we shall quickly adopt it.
As regards the general Resolution, let me say at once that we are prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean). My right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) has asked me to say a few words to the Committee on this subject. Quite apart from any criticism of the Bill, there is no doubt that it is an unusual, and I think myself an undesirable, course to introduce so complicated a Bill as this in an Autumn Session. I hope that such a practice will not become permanent. It is only called for by the special pressure of business and, therefore, I think as a rule it is not right to introduce, in an Autumn Session, any business which can quite well be left over until the next Session. I would, however, point out that it is not the fault of the Minister of Health that we have been compelled to adopt this mode of procedure. As a matter of fact, the Bill was accepted by the Cabinet last July, and therefore the responsibility is ours. It was due to the pressure of other business. That does not alter the fact that, so far as possible, we should not try to get Members of the House together in an Autumn Session to press forward what may well wait until a later Session. That is the view of my right hon. Friend quite as much as myself. Let us consider how that will affect the special Resolution which we are now discussing. The Bill is a very complicated one.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is six Bills in one.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend says it is six Bills in one, but that is not quite the case. Many of its provisions are absolutely necessary, but that does not alter what I said before. My right hon. Friend (the Minister of Health) realises everything which I have said to the Committee now, and realises also what is the sense of the Committee in regard to the matter. I would like to point out to the Committee that the conditions under which we are now carrying on our work are very different to those to which we were accustomed before the War. Then—I was in the Government, although I did not occupy so high a position—we relied upon our party to back us in whatever we proposed. During the much longer time I was in Opposition I found that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) took precisely the same view, and I think I may say of him as well as of ourselves that the more completely he was wrong, the more thoroughly he could rely upon his party to back him. We are not now in that position. We are told that there is no House of Commons at all. That really is not so. We have all found that it is precisely because there is so large a majority in this House that hon. Members have the right—and they feel they can do it without the consequences which come to an ordinary party—to make their views felt, and the Government have a right to pay due regard to what is the feeling of the House of Commons.
I dare say I shall be told in some newspapers to-morrow that the Government have "climbed down." We have never climbed down, and we do not intend to climb down now. My right hon. Friend spoke of the Clauses in this Bill with which he is quite prepared to say that he would not ask the Committee to proceed. There are thirteen of these Clauses. It is true that that is a very large number. I went over them with him. Some of them seemed to me they were not absolutely necessary just now, and he agreed that he would press forward only the things which he considered essential. Some of these provisions seemed to me to be useful, and we are content to leave it to the Standing Committee or to this House to consider their merits. Some of the Clauses we would like to go through, and therefore what I propose is this: We are willing to deal with the House of Commons fairly. We are not
trying to exercise undue authority, and we desire that each of these Clauses should be considered on its merits. We would therefore like the Bill to go to the Standing Committee as it appears, and we will not attempt to use the authority of the Government to upset the decisions of the Committee upstairs, unless they cut out something that we consider absolutely vital, and there are some provisions in the Bill which we do consider vital.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: This is a very important point. Would my right hon. Friend testify what provisions the Government consider to be vital? It must have a great effect upon the voting on this matter.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried, and the Government do consider that parts of the Bill are essential. I have said that, when it goes upstairs, we will not override the decision of the Committee, except on a point which we consider absolutely vital, and even then the House of Commons will have an opportunity of dealing with it on the Report stage. I will go further. Just because, in our view, the present is not a suitable time for a measure of this kind, I will say that if there be any serious opposition upstairs to any provisions which we do not consider vital, we will not press them in Standing Committee. I ask hon. Members to realise what I say. We do not, we will not, attempt to exercise an over-riding authority of the decisions of the Committee upstairs.

Earl WINTERTON: I want to ask the Leader of the House one question. The opponents of the Bill are not satisfied with the present composition of the Committee. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow those who are opposed to the Bill as it stands to represent to him privately afterwards their view, that there might be on the Committee something approaching to a fair equality of view?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not know what the composition of the Committee was, but if it is in my power to alter the Committee so as to make it possible that the views expressed are properly represented, I shall be glad to do so. We will not press any parts of the Bill which are not necessary, and we will not ask the House on Report to reverse the decisions
which have come from the Committee. I do not think it is possible for us to meet more completely the wishes of the House than I have done.
The House must not think that the Government does not realise how serious is the financial position of the country. There are two mistakes made in regard to that, not by the Government only, but by the public outside. One mistake is to assume that financial difficulties are due to bad management. That may be so in some instances, but I can assure the Committee that the Government will welcome any real assistance in cutting down expenditure in any direction. The assumption to which I allude is that by good management you can get rid of these difficulties. That is quite impossible. When I myself was Chancellor of the Exchequer during the War I pointed out over and over again to the House that the real financial difficulties of this country would come after the War was over. Everyone looked forward with just the same view as I did, and do not let anyone imagine that the expenditure of large amounts of money on unproductive and destructive work can have taken place, without leaving an effect which will be very bad for trade and industry in this country for a very long time to come.
The other error, which I think is of a similar nature, is that people who are feeling how great is the financial stress are inclined to look at every proposal which means the spending of more money as in itself bad. An hon. Member has put forward the analogy of a private individual. It has been said that when a private individual with a certain income has reached the limit of that income, he does without what he might otherwise have liked to have had. But that is not a right analogy. The right analogy is between the State and a going business. At certain times it is absolutely necessary for people who are running a going business to get credit, and that means borrowing.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Yes, but that sometimes becomes unwise—overtrading on borrowed money.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend is in business, and I will guarantee that he he has done this hundreds of times.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not take that view. I wrote last night to some
friends not to borrow money to increase trading. I considered that they were overweighted, and could not afford to take the risk of borrowing money at the present time; they ought to shorten sail. I do not think that the State in these times is justified in involving itself in increased undisclosed outlays, however good the objects may be.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I disagree profoundly, and I will give my reasons.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Are we to understand that the House will be able to discuss this question on the Resolution when my right hon. Friend has done speaking?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that I am going a little beyond the bounds of Order.

Mr. SAMUEL: Go on!

Mr. BONAR LAW: The point I am making is this: In an ordinary business, take that of a shipowner, the time comes—I am afraid that it is coming very soon now—when he can hardly run ships so as to pay expenses. The question arises, whether he will lay them up or continue to run them. Supposing a shipowner finds that something ought to be done to a ship, obviously—

The CHAIRMAN: I have been getting increasingly anxious as to the course of the discussion. The Committee will observe that I took a very broad view at the outset, considering that this is a very unusual Bill, in allowing an unusual width to the discussion, but I am afraid that we might enter into a new Budget discussion if we continue on these lines. I hope that hon. Members will be content not to take advantage of my liberality in the matter to follow on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very unwilling to claim any special privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] If it is the wish of the Committee, I will finish what I have got to say. Obviously, if it is going seriously to damage the working value of the ship to leave it as it is, he will, if he can get credit, spend what is necessary to repair it. In my view, the state is in exactly the same position. You cannot possibly say you can spend no money on anything new, without doing
the greatest damage. Just as an ordinary business man, when times are bad, should not spend a penny which is not absolutely necessary, so, in the same way the State should not spend a penny which it thinks is not going to give a return, and a return immediately. If hon. Members will look on this Bill in Committee in that spirit, if they will turn down, as I myself would, any expenditure which, taking the financial condition into account, they think is not wise, they will do precisely what the Government would like them to do under this Bill.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend, who is one of the most adroit Leaders of the House to whom I have ever listened, has made a speech on this Resolution which touches very much on the merits of the Bill. I congratulate him on the fact that the Government have at last taken some notice of the House of Commons, and the general expression of opinion last week that this Bill, at any rate, in its present form, was going to produce more misery than happiness My right hon. Friend has said that more than once during the War, he said that the real financial difficulties of this country would only come when the War was over, but that was an unfortunate lapse, because I remember being faced at the General Election with an enormous number of promises. We were to have all sorts of things—new houses, railways, transports. Still if the Government have abandoned that I am quite content and will not go back upon it, but my right hon. Friend says that the Government will welcome suggestions for reducing public expenditure. My suggestion is— and I will not engage in any polemics—that this Resolution and the Bill should be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No!"] Thirteen Clauses, I believe, are to be withdrawn. Withdraw all of it, and let us come to this Bill fresh next year. Then my right, hon. Friend will have had the advantage of the Select Committee, which he is going to set up, to find out whether we can really state in a Resolution what would be the exact charge that would be imposed.
I propose to argue against it, that if the Government go on this way they will, in my judgment, obstruct the greatest social reform that we can accomplish
to-day which is to reduce public expenditure. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend criticises the suggestion that I made the other day in the public Press, that the Government, like a private individual, must cut their gown according to their cloth, I say that my analogy is absolutely accurate and that the Government must do the same as a private individual and, if it has overspent in the past, must save in the future. My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that there have been no signs of Government saving up to now. I am glad to see some signs of repentance at last. This Bill came before the Cabinet last July. They were quite prepared to incur that expenditure then. I do not wish the Government any harm. I want to support any Government in this country that will be economical. We must have a drastic cutting down of public expenditure before this country can resume its old prosperity. If we pass this Bill now I do not know what Clauses the Government are going to abandon. It is a most unusual procedure to withdraw 13 Clauses and to say that when Amendments are made they will not proceed to reverse the decision to which the Committee has come.

Sir H. CRAIK: Unless they are very important.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does not this show that the Bill and the Resolution ought to be withdrawn? We all know what happens in Committee upstairs. There is a solid phalanx of Government administrators and their secretaries—

Mr. HOPKINSON: And the Labour party.

Mr. LAMBERT: If it had not been for that somewhat unholy coalition last week, the Government might have been a little more amenable than they are now. I do not care what part of the Bill passes—it will increase public expenditure.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): No.

Mr. LAMBERT: Then what is the need of the resolution? If this were an ordinary party Debate I would ask leave to move to report Progress to know where we are, but it is not. I want to help on business. If we are told by the Minister and my right hon. Friend that this Bill will not increase public
expenditure, my objection would be largely withdrawn; but I cannot imagine any Clause in this Bill that will not increase public expenditure. Take the housing Clause—that there should be an extension of the time for the completion of the building programme of the Government. This Clause authorises payment of grants up to the 24th December, 1921. It would be far better to discuss that point next Session in order to see exactly how this housing programme is going to work. My own impression is that this housing policy of the Government is thoroughly unsound. You have got into a vicious circle of building houses that will cost the Government something like from £1,000 to £1,200 apiece. If houses are being built by local authorities at £1,200 apiece there must be waste. There is no reason for six times the pre-War cost. Far better if the whole of this housing were postponed until next Session in order to have three or four months more of experience of the housing programme of the Government. I am very suspicious of this policy, and this Clause, if carried, will postpone for another year the application of private enterprise to building.
5.0 P.M.
I do not believe that you will ever get housing back to where we had it in pre-War days until private enterprise can be again engaged. You are at present making it impossible for any private person to build houses. No private person can compete with the Government and the rates in a building programme. You have got into a vicious circle whereby there is a limited amount of material for building, while you have got an unlimited demand caused by the Government and the local authorities. I want the prices of houses to come down. A reduction of public expenditure is the first social reform that this House can carry out. I want to ask another question. Are there any provisions which the Government will regard as vital which will increase the rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not know."] Somebody ought to know. I have here a letter which has appeared in the Press from the Mayor of Chester. He says:
The high rating is leading to the old evils of overcrowding. It maks decent homes for the people impossible. The higher the rates, the worse the people will be housed.
What is the good of making the schools and the hospitals better if the houses are worse?
That is a sound doctrine. There has been a kind of view that the more public money you can spend the greater public benefactor you will be. We have to get back to the old principles of public economy of men like Mr. Gladstone, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Lord Goschen and Sir Wm. Harcourt. They were not entirely fools when they curtailed public expenditure. If you increase the rates you will add largely to the volume of unemployment. If you take heavy rates and taxes from any person in the community he has not that capital with which to engage in enterprise which will give employment. The ex-soldiers and ex-sailors are calling out for employment, and you, by increasing the rates and the taxes, are directly aggravating the problem. That is an economic fact which cannot be gainsaid. I ask the Government in all sincerity to deal with the House of Commons fairly, and if they deal with it fairly, they will withdraw this Resolution and bring it up next Session, and let us have more experience of the housing programme of the Government, when we shall be able to find out more exactly than we know now the true financial position of the country.

Major HAMILTON: I listened with great interest to the Leader of the House when he told us what action the Government proposed to take. I do not know where we are. Now that we have got back to humble back-bench Members endeavouring to discuss this Resolution, I find that the Leader of the House has promised to accept the Amendment which was not moved, but which is on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). That Amendment is to leave out all the words:
and in respect of houses provided with the approval of the Minister of Health by local authorities for persons employed by them.
What difference does that make? We were assured by the Minister of Health that this Financial Resolution was only carrying forward money which was granted for building purposes, and whether that money was expended on building premises for persons employed by the local authorities or in building houses for the working classes generally made no difference whatever. Now the Leader of the House tells us that he is going to
accept an Amendment which, financially, has no effect whatever upon the Financial Resolution. The words in the Resolution which we are going to omit are quite unnecessary. I am glad to see that the Minister of Health, by nodding his head, agrees with me, and I suppose they are only put in the Resolution really to tempt me to talk about it. The Leader of the House also said that the Cabinet considered this Bill last July, and decided that it was necessary. The position both as regards national finance and local finance last July was very different from what it is to-day, and the opponents of this Bill, of whom I am one, feel that not only the Clauses that are clearly defined in this Resolution cause extra expenditure, but that the Local Government and other Clauses will, in some way or other, increase expenditure or tempt local authorities to further expenditure. The Minister of Health on the Second Reading said:
I am willing and anxious to join with hon. Members, in Committee or elsewhere, in a scrutiny of this Bill, so that we do not allow any liabilities to be incurred which the public necessities do not warrant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th Nov., 1920, col. 1130, vol. 134.]
We now have an assurance from the Leader of the House that 13 Clauses can he dropped out of the Bill immediately, but we are not told which are the Clauses. How can we continue to discuss a Financial Resolution to a Bill which was introduced by the Minister of Health in a speech of which the very first words were that he was going to drop the chief proposal of the whole Bill, that of setting up hospitals by the ratepayers, and now, when we get to the Financial Resolution, we are told that the Government is prepared to drop 13 out of the 26 Clauses, while as regards the remaining 13 Clauses, unless they are of vital importance, they will be bound by the decision of the Committee upstairs. I hope the Leader of the House will take into consideration the plea made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert), and withdraw this Bill temporarily. Many of us feel that there are a great many points in the Bill which are of great importance, much too important to be hidden away in the back pages of an omnibus Bill of this kind. These matters could be easily brought in, in a short Bill, explained by the
Minister, and I am sure they would receive the cordial approval of the House, and be carried at once. The feeling which I have in opposing this Bill and the Financial Resolution is that the whole country is looking to this House to control more immediately the expenditure of the Government. The London Municipal Societies only the other day, appoached the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Education, and amongst other things they said:
The schemes both in the Education Act, 1918, and all the Health Acts should be reconsidered and adapted to the present state of national and local finance, as it is quite impossible to provide for the enormous additional expenditure which will be involved in carrying them out in their present form.
What are we doing by this Financial Resolution? The Government have not been able to expend the money which this House has already authorised under the Ministry of Health Acts, and the Minister of Health now says, "We have not been able to spend all the money that has been voted up to date, and we want your authority to spend it in the near future." We do not want to give them that authority. We agree with the London Municipal Societies with respect to these Ministry of Health Acts, the objects of which we consider excellent, and which, I believe, ultimately would be of great benefit to the country. When we passed these Acts the House felt they would be of great benefit, but now we have a chance of compelling the Government to give us an opportunity of reconsidering these Acts, and of seeing whether, in the financial position of the country to-day, and especially of local finance, it would not be wise to curtail some of the expenditure and not carry it forward. I will read part of a letter which appeared in to-day's "Times." I quote it because I notice that the Minister of Health on the Second Reading said that everyone in this House who had knowledge of, and was connected with local government, was in favour of the Bill.

Mr. LORDEN: No.

Major HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman said so, and I am going to say why I disagree with him. He referred especially to my hon. and learned Friend the ex-Member for the Middleton Division (Sir Ryland Adkins), who is at
present absent from the House, and who spoke in favour of the Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee. The letter is from the chairman of the Somerset County Council. I will quote two paragraphs:
Is it desirable that the Government should be constantly exerting pressure upon local bodies, not only to perform their statutory duties to the fullest extent, but to exercise all their statutory powers? Ought not local authorities to be free to economise in non-essential matters?
I think that is sound common sense.
Lastly, ought not more precautions to be taken against Parliament passing new measures of social reform without due consideration or knowledge of the local burdens involved in their administration.
If we pass this Financial Resolution we send this Bill, with its 26 Clauses, up to Committee, and, although we have the assurance of the Leader of the House that he is prepared to drop 13 Clauses and to reconsider the other 13, this Bill will come back in some form or other on Report, and we shall have lost nearly all control over it. Take Clause 1. I did not understand the right hon. Member for Peebles on the Second Reading. I do not think he could have studied the Bill then as much as he has done since, for, so far as I could understand him, he was in favour of the Bill. He supported it because he said there were a large number of cottages in his beautiful constituency, which I happen to know very well, which are only occupied for a short time in the year, and this Clause would give power to the Government to take these cottages and convert them. Under Clause 1, if large houses and valuable property in constituencies like Peebles are seized by the local authorities and converted for the use of the working classes, that cost will come first out of the rates; but when the cost, together with the other building expenditure, has amounted to one penny rate, the balance will be paid by the Exchequer. I do not know whether this Financial Resolution ought to be passed in view of that argument. As I understand the Housing Acts, there is no doubt that if the cost of expenditure on housing exceeds a penny rate, the balance is bound to fall by guarantee upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, upon the taxes of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Peebles was referring to small houses which are taken as week-end cottages or as shooting boxes in the district adjoining his constituency, which are only occupied for a few weeks in the summer months, and under this Clause the local authority could take them over. Would the right hon. Gentleman put a working man and his family to live in a cottage the rent of which, together with the land, would be from £75 to £125 a year? No working man could afford to pay that rent, but the balance would have to be paid, and beyond a penny rate the balance would come back upon the Exchequer.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That was not what I said. The hon. Member seems to have been as casual a student of my speech as he suggests I have been of the Bill.

Major HAMILTON: I am extremely sorry if I have in any way misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, but I may say I took the trouble this morning to reread his speech. [HON. MEMHERS: "Read it!"] Unfortunately, I have not the copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT here. The hon. Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst) told us of the taking over of houses in his constituency. I happen to know that part of the world. Those houses which have been seized, and in which working-class ex-service men and their families are living, several families in the same house, are large houses. If we pass this Resolution and allow that type of house to be taken and converted, then the people who get them will not be able to pay a fair rent, and there will be a charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, I hope that we shall reject this Resolution. Clause 9 provides that paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 2 of the Public Health Act of 1875 are to have no further effect. Those two paragraphs made it necessary for any local authority undertaking building work to have it checked by their surveyor and financially checked. Those safeguards are now swept away. What is going to happen? Local authorities will undertake expenditure on houses, and the adaptation of large houses, or those beautiful small cottages in a Division like Peebles, for the working classes without any estimate being laid before them by the surveyor. A heavy charge will fall on the ratepayer, and upwards of a penny rate will come back on the Exchequer, in spite of the fact that this
Financial Resolution does not give any authority for any such additional expenditure. I fail to know where we are. We are informed that this Amendment, which is accepted, is of no value, and that the Government are prepared to drop thirteen Clauses of the Bill and take the decision of the Committee on the other thirteen Clauses, unless some vital point is affected though we are not told what the vital points are. How can we continue to discuss a Financial Resolution of this importance on an omnibus Bill. I add my weak plea to my right hon. Friend's powerful plea to the Minister to drop the Bill and withdraw the Resolution. The Minister of Health has, I am sure, a great anxiety to try and do good, but he has got a sort of epidemic of legislation. He is suffering from some sort of disease, and he must check himself, or the House must check him. As he has agreed that the chief proposal in his Bill was no good, and that thirteen Clauses are to be dropped, and that the remaining thirteen can be altered, does he not think it would be wiser to take his courage in both hands and withdraw the Resolution and introduce such Clauses as are thought necessary in a separate Bill at a later date.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I should have hesitated to intervene in this Debate but for the feeling which appears to be prevalent that under almost any circumstances Labour either in this House or in the country will support heavy expenditure. I desire to make it as clear as I possibly can that there is probably no force in this country which in its own plain and humble way more fully appreciates the dangers of heavy expenditure and severe taxation than we do. We have only to remember the vast expenditure of the War, the weight of taxation, and the steady increase of local assessment at the present time to appreciate the effect which expenditure is having on employment, to mention only one of the problems. While we keep those things quite clearly in mind I do hope we are not going to close our eyes to the essential facts of this discussion. I confess I find it quite impossible to understand the strong protests which this Bill has occasioned. We on these Benches have fought, with perhaps indifferent success, against vast expenditure on all manner of enterprises in different parts of the world, and we sought to curtail the outlay of public Departments
where we believed that to be necessary, and we have looked in vain to the other side of this House for any support on those occasions. It is only now by some curious set of circumstances that we find strenuous and almost violent opposition directed against a Bill which is promoted by the Minister of Health. Our broad contention is if we are going to reduce expenditure at the present time let us reduce it first of all in the foreign policy which the Government is pursuing, and in the second place in that vast area over which this House exercises so little control, and not in a sphere which many of us believe to be absolutely necessary if post-War reconstruction is to be worthy of the name.
The head and front of the opposition to this Bill is undeniably its possibility of increasing local rates. I think, apart from certain questions of policy, that is the undoubted ground of objection. May I respectfully ask hon. Members opposite who do not share our views on municipal matters to look to the actual facts of the local rating in this country as they are well known to anyone who has had any experience in local authorities. The increases which have taken place in local expenditure between 1914 and 1918 are due almost entirely to war conditions. The two leading causes are the great increases which were necessary in the salaries and in the wages of the staffs of local authorities in this country and, in the second place, to the extraordinary sums which local authorities have had to pay for materials which they acquired for any enterprise in which they engage. On the point of municipal salaries, I say, as a plain matter of industrial investigation, that it is true that in pre-War time we seriously underpaid a very large number of our professional advisers to the local authorities, and we certainly underpaid our manual and other workers. Everybody knows that public-spirited men gave their services in a professional capacity year after year to those local authorities, and that in many cases those men could have easily commanded far larger sums in the outside market. They remained because of superannuation and because of a certain interest in the work and a certain sense of public duty. Every industrial investigator knows that municipal manual workers were underpaid. There was a tendency to keep down the rates, and
there was largely the absence of any organisation and the failure to combine, till comparatively recent times, on the part of those men in order to improve their position. Those are the two essential causes of the great increase in local assessment within recent times. No definite steps of a practical character have been taken to reduce the price of the commodities which municipalities require to buy. Everybody knows perfectly well that the price is automatically raised against a public body in nine cases out of ten, and there is hardly a local authority in this country which has not been disadvantageously placed by reason of the operation of trusts and rings and syndicates and combines in the supply of building and other materials.
If all these things are so, then let us face the facts of the situation and do not let us concentrate undue and unfair blame on a public Department which is entrusted with the great cause of social reform. Surely it is far better business to look at the facts of local assessment than to reject the Bill. I admit certain facts weaken it, and I frankly agree that the Bill attempts too much within too narrow a compass. For example, I admit that hospitals are so difficult in this country as regards their position, finance, and the rest of it that they would be well worthy of a Bill of their own or of some great public effort. I admit the criticism of some parts of the Bill just as I believe that other parts are essential. On the question of local assessment it is perfectly plain that in recent years we have, so to speak, stabilised valuation. We have had the Rent Restriction Acts, which have tended to keep rents more or less stationary; and, though I agree all that is necessary, the fact must be remembered at a time like this, especially when the actual rent is taken as the basis of the valuation for local assessment. I think the English valuation system is not so good as ours, from many points of view, but the problem is one which is worthy of very serious consideration in the consideration of local rating. Although Commission after Commission has reported on the relation of Imperial to local taxation, nothing, or practically nothing, has been done up to the present. We are faced now with post-War circumstances, in which almost everybody argues that we are placing undue burdens on the
locality, and that we are not leaving to the National Exchequer things which the National Exchequer ought properly to pay. Finally I have not the least hesitation in saying that we will require to make up our minds at a very early date what additional powers, if any, we are going to confer on the local authorities in regard to revenue-producing enterprises. After all, that has been admitted, and trams, electric light, and so forth, are carried on by permission of this House under municipalities. If the local authorities are not to sacrifice a very necessary part of their enterprise, the chances are that in future we shall require to give their enterprises much freer play than in the past and a much fairer chance, and that has a very important bearing upon local rating and upon a Bill of this kind.
In conclusion, there is only one point I am going to press. Let us suppose this Bill is withdrawn and the Financial Resolution rejected, hon. Members will not be relieved of the duty of looking at what follows. Supposing we upstairs delete the Clause which refers to additional powers to deal with the provision of houses, and with causes which are interrupting or hindering the provision of dwellings at the present time. Everybody knows that the additional powers are urgently required. Houses are not being provided, and I am here to say, as one who has had some years of experience of local authorities, that we require this provision if we are going to get a chance locally to deal with this very important problem. This attitude of hostility towards quite minor methods of social reform is making the position very difficult indeed for those of us who in the country and elsewhere have done our very best to maintain the constitutionalist movement. You make our task difficult, you increase the lack of respect for this assembly, and you confer additional power on the men of direct action outside who are saying that that is their only hope.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out the words
and in respect of houses provided with the approval of the Minister of Health by local authorities for persons employed by them.
The hon. Member who has just sat down omitted, I think, to read the whole of
the Financial Resolution. If he had read it, he would have seen that what the Resolution proposed to do was
to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section 1 of The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister of Health may in any special case allow.
If he had read that Act, as I have, he would have found that it authorised the expenditure of, I think, £15,000,000, which had to be expended within a year of the passing of the Act, which was, I believe, the end of December last year, but the Minister had power to extend that by four months. Therefore, supposing we do not pass this Financial Resolution, the position with regard to the finding of money for housing would be this, that up to the end of next April there would be plenty of money for houses, and towards the end of next April, when we shall know what the financial position of the country as a whole will be for the financial year ending March, 1922, we shall be able to consider whether or not we are able to give any further money for the provision of houses. I venture to point out that that is entirely consistent with the old traditional practice of the House of Commons when dealing with finance. It has always been the practice of the House of Commons that the finance of one year shall be dealt with in that year, and that you should not take power to raise money which is not spent in that year and then carry it over to other years. That has never been sanctioned at all. I see my right hon. Friend, if I may so call him, who is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Asquith) on the Bench opposite, and I think he will agree with m[...] when I say that that has been the invariable custom and practice of the House of Commons, and therefore all we are doing, if we reject this Financial Resolution, is not in any kind of way to hamper or hinder the provision of money for building houses, but merely to restore the ordinary safeguards over finance which have always been maintained up to the present time.
It was said that this Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and myself, was superfluous, but I do not think that is quite so. The
result of the Amendment, if carried, would be that municipalities might not build houses for their own employés. We have always heard, when agriculture has been talked about, that tied houses were a bad thing, and did not give that freedom which was necessary to the agricultural labour. If there is anything in that argument—and I do not myself think there is very much—it certainly is a strong argument against this proposal. It does not seem to me that there is any reason whatever why the employés of a municipality should be put in possession of a, house built out of the rates. Where are you going to draw the limit? The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that professional advisers of municipalities in the past had not been sufficiently remunerated, and that they could have got other work. I venture to doubt it. I have no doubt they said so, but if they could have got more remunerative work, I am quite certain they would have taken it. My experience of life is that anybody who is in a salaried position always says he is badly paid and could probably do better elsewhere, and that if you say: "Go, and do better elsewhere," in 99 cases out of 100 he does not do better elsewhere, but does worse. That certainly, I should say, applies to the higher grades of municipal employés. Are we to build a suitable house for a town clerk, who is probably getting £1,500 a year, or something of that sort, out of the pockets of the ratepayers, aided by the taxpayers, many of whom are in nothing like so good a position as a town clerk?
I should like very shortly to deal with one or two points which the Leader of the House made. He said we must not think we are going to get decreased expenditure merely by good management, and that we must not think that the expenditure has been so high because there has been want of good management. I do not disagree with that. Then he goes on to say that, taking the case of a business firm, would not such a firm enter into extended operations and take up large commitments if it could borrow money in order to do it? I distinctly differ from him. There are some firms who have done that, and they have generally ended in the Bankruptcy Court. The usual custom of a business firm who want to take up an enterprise which will cost,
say, £50,000, if they are prudent, will be to say, "We can provide £20,000 out of our own resources, and we will borrow £30,000 at the bank." But if you have to borrow practically the whole of that, or a very large proportion of it, at the bank, the majority of careful people would say, "That is making my commitments too large, and if anything happens, a financial crisis, a war, or anything of that sort, I shall not be able to repay that loan." I venture to say that it is by careful methods of that sort that the great commercial houses of to-day have been a success, and it applies more so to the Government at the present moment, when credit is not very easy to get. We have been told that this Bill will go to a Committee upstairs and that the Government will listen to what the Committee upstairs say. The composition of the Committee upstairs, so far as I know, is somewhere about 50 members, to whom 15 are added, making 65 in all, or it is 60, with 15 added—I am not sure which. I see one hon. Member, the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Lorden), who made a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill which everyone in the House listened to and thought was one of the best speeches made during the course of that debate. He is an expert on a very important part of the matters dealt with in the Bill, but he has not been put on the Committee. We want hon. Members on the Committee who will give their time to investigating what is going on up there and who know something about the Amendments which will be proposed.

Sir S. ROBERTS: Since the Leader of the House spoke, I have authorised the discharge of six of the old Members of the Committee and substituted in their places six others (who are understood to represent the opponents of the Bill). My hon. Friend (Mr. Lorden) is one of them.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not desire to cast any aspersion on the Committee of Selection, over which my hon. Friend so ably presides. I am certain they did their best, but what really did happen was—

Sir S. ROBERTS: I was not there personally. The Committee was formed in a great hurry, at a moment's notice, and I was not there; but the right hon. Baronet knows that the extra 15 members are allotted in proportion to the parties in the House.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is exactly what I thought. The Chairman of the Committee was not there, and the Committee was called in a great hurry. What was the object of calling the Committee in a great hurry? Why was it put down to be taken next Tuesday, before the selected Members had actually been added? It was because at that time the Government wanted to get it through in a hurry. Of these 65 Members, how many will attend even for a Bill of this sort? Hon. Members are in many cases on two Committees at the same time. I generally am myself. If we get 40 Members there on an average, we shall be very lucky, and here is a great Bill, 13 Clauses of which are to be withdrawn, which was introduced in an Autumn Session, when the Leader of the House says that Autumn Sessions should not be used for this purpose, which is to be sent upstairs, where it will be adjudicated upon by about 40 Members out of a House containing 630 Members, excluding the Sinn Fein Members. It was never intended that Bills of this importance should be sent to Grand Committee, and especially Bills in regard to which the Government say they are prepared to accept very important and vital Amendments. The duty of the House is quite clear. I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for saying that for the future the Government will pay some attention to the feelings of the Members of this House, and they have done so at the present moment. We are now within about five weeks of Christmas, and I presume we shall come back some time about the middle of February. Except the reform of the House of Lords, I do not think there is anything important to do next year.

Mr. SEDDON: Licensing.

Sir F. BANBURY: That had better be left alone. It would be quite enough to do next Session if we devoted our time to the five or six Bills into which this one could be divided, and to the consideration of the reform of the House of Lords. I earnestly hope the Government will also consent to the withdrawal of the Financial Resolution.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution," put, and negatived.

Original Question, as amended, again proposed.

Mr. T. THOMSON: Whatever may be the measure of agreement in the House with regard to the announcement we have heard, I am quite certain that those in the country connected with local government in industrial areas will be grievously disappointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] I am convinced that those who are responsible for local government in the country will hear with great dismay and disappointment that half of this small health measure is to be jettisoned, and the ratepayers, who are responsible for sending their representatives to local authorities, are quite well able to look after themselves without the self-appointed champions in this House. I submit that a great deal of what we have heard in the House to-day and in previous times is a serious reflection on local government. We must remember that none of these expenses, to which members are objecting as taxpayers, can be incurred unless the ratepayers' representatives are willing, and I submit, with respect, that the ratepayers are as well able to look after themselves by curtailing the action of their representatives on local councils as Members of this House are. Taking the country throughout, you will find that the rates have gone up 100 per cent. since 1914, but if we recollect that the purchasing value of £1 to-day is only 8s. 6d., as compared with 20s. in 1914, surely it is not unreasonable to expect that, just in the same way as you have to pay twice as much for your own living, the local authority will have to pay twice as much for its own service, even if it wants to get no greater return. Therefore, it is beside the mark to charge local authorities with extravagance by saying their rates have doubled since 1914. Can this House cast aspersions on local authorities? What control has this House exercised over its finances? Have the national expenses only gone up 100 per cent. since 1914? If you refer to the returns of the Treasury, you will find that this House, which is so zealous about expenditure when national health is concerned, is responsible for an increase sixfold since 1914, and yet this House is seeking to control the expenditure of local authorities which have only increased theirs twofold. We are all anxious for national economy, but when we waste the nation's substances on madcap adventures in Asia and Mesopotamia, and on bloated armaments and poison
gas, I submit it is time that some protest is made against this cry for economy when a few thousands, and it may be a few millions, are required for the building up of the health and strength of those who live in our industrial centres. It is not a real economy, because you will only pile up your expenses in years to come, and your poor rate or sickness rate will be ten times greater if you do not adopt these small measures of health reform in the Bill.
Reference has been made to the matter of dealing with this in the Autumn Session. The right hon. Gentleman has been pressed by representatives of local authorities in industrial areas for months past to bring in several of the powers which are foreshadowed in these Clauses. It is not the fault of the Minister, and it is not the fault of the municipalities, that other matters dealing with Russia and Mesopotamia, and dealing with matters which do nothing to help the health and well-being of the country as a whole, have crowded out some of these matters which some of us think of real and vital importance. I submit that when the question comes to be considered as to what control this House should have over the expenditure of the ratepayers, the ratepayers and their local authorities should have something to say. There is no doubt sound finance in this House when expenditure is required, that not only have you legislation in a Bill, but also financial resolutions supporting the proposals. But surely the comparison does not hold good with regard to the ratepayers. We in this House pass a Bill authorising certain expenditure, and it is left to the councils to say whether they will incur that expenditure. I am sure local authorities will look askance at any attempt to dictate to them what their chosen representatives on their local authorities shall do.
The real point about which I rose was to ask the Minister a question with regard to the conditions under which his grant to these houses is to be made. We know when the previous measure was before the House that it was contended that the conditions under which the subsidy was granted should be on all-fours with the conditions which had to be complied with when the municipality built these houses. When the previous measure dealing with the subsidy was before the House some
of us, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) moved Amendments in Committee and again on Report in order that the grant of the subsidy to private builders should not be given except under conditions comparable with those of municipalities. The Minister resisted these Amendments, and suggested that we should trust him to see that the standard of construction was not modified and to see that he got a good house. Amendments were put down specifying that the Orders of the Minister should come before the House before they were ratified, and that was resisted because of the exigencies of the time and the stress and the hurry with which the measure was brought in. In answer to a question put by an hon. Member in this House a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the subsidy would be applicable to houses constructed with corrugated roofs. I submit that it is not sound finance to grant a loan for sixty years and public money for the construction of houses which have corrugated roofs. I contend that no local authority would submit plans or sanction plans for their housing schemes under the 1919 Act which provided for such miserable construction as that of a building with a corrugated roof. Therefore I hope the Minister will see that, so far as the extended period is concerned, these houses which are to have the subsidy shall conform in every way with regard to stability, structure and comfort to those conditions which are applicable to municipal houses, and I hope he will, at any rate, see that the authorities responsible for making the grants will take care that in future we do not grant £260, or whatever the proportion may be, for houses of a flimsy character which have corrugated roofs and could not last the sixty years.
Therefore, I hope in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will accept words which will make it quite clear that the same standard is required for a house which has a subsidy as that required for a house provided by municipalities. When we were discussing this before, the Paymaster-General said that surely we can trust them to look after this matter. But it is not a question of trusting a Minister; it is a question of the Department. I suggest that we should require, when granting this public money, that
Orders shall be laid on the Table of this House, and that this public money shall not be spent on such flimsy construction as that of houses with corrugated roofs. With regard to the hon. and gallant Member who so belittled the value of Clause 1, and suggested that this would moan an increased charge on the rates, and twitted the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) about not having understood the Bill, I venture to say the hon. and gallant Member has misread entirely the 1919 Act and the Amending Act, because houses which are to be commandeered, and may be altered at the expense of the owner, so as to put them into sanitary condition, do not come within the province of assisted schemes under the 1919 Act, and do not come under the provisions of a penny rate to be borne by the taxpayer, so that there is no fear that there will be any charge either on the ratepayer or on the taxpayer if these empty cottages, which exist in hundreds of thousands of cases, are commandeered and used to relieve to some extent the tremendous problem of overcrowding in our industrial centres. Notwithstanding what the Loader of the House has said, I do hope when this Bill gets into Committee he will not jettison these Clauses, but will do everything that makes for the health of the people, for real economy exists in the well-being of the people, and not in mere pounds, shillings and pence measured by rates and taxes.

6.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON: I should think that none of us who opposed this Bill on Second Reading wished to suggest in any way that the Government should climb down. What we claim the result of our action has been—not I think for the first time—is that the authority of the House over finance is beginning to re-assert itself, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be the last to deny that the present House of Commons has a perfect right to object when a proposition is brought forward which involves a huge charge either on the local authorities or on the State. That being so, so far as I am personally concerned, I am not disposed to proceed much further with my opposition to the Bill at this stage. It will come into Committee upstairs, and there the real point will appear. While I do not press the Minister of Health when he replies to say what Clauses he is going to drop,
yet it would be of great advantage to the consideration of this Resolution if he will indicate to us what are these Clauses. Recognising, as I do, that he is willing to withdraw 13 Clauses upstairs, I am not sure that any further opposition at this stage will be useful. Many hon. Members, of course, will not agree with me, but my opposition to the Bill is based not so much on the whole Bill, as on a certain portion of it. Six separate Bills should have embodied the proposals of this Bill. That being so, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to drop 13 Clauses puts a very different complexion upon the Bill. The composition of the Committee is now rather more clearly equal than it was at the commencement of this Debate, which again puts rather a different complexion upon matters.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My Noble Friend opposite (Earl Winterton) has rather too much faith in the Government upstairs. I feel it is very important, before we go to a Division upon this Resolution, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should tell us rather more about these 13 Clauses. I listened very carefully to the Leader of the House, and I am left absolutely in a vague state of mind as to what is really going to take place. Are we definitely to understand that 13 Clauses of this Bill are going to be dropped? That is one point. I should be very glad to be made clear upon that when the right hon. Gentleman replies. Secondly, I think we ought not to go into Committee upstairs until we plainly know what are the 13 Clauses which are going to be dropped by the right hon. Gentleman. This seems to me to be all-important. Possibly the 13 Clauses dropped by the right hon. Gentleman will still leave in the Bill some vitally important Clauses about which there may be differing opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said he thought the local authorities and the ratepayers would be bitterly disappointed by the speech of the Leader of the House. I venture to think that a profound sigh of relief will go up from every local authority when they discover that some of these enormous burdens are not going to be placed upon their shoulders. I agree with the Noble Lord opposite that the situation has somewhat altered. I
shall certainly vote against this Resolution unless the Minister of Health is able to tell us, when replying, which are, more or less, the 13 Clauses which he proposes to drop, and whether he is really going to drop 13 Clauses out of the Bill.
Coming to the Resolution before us, to my mind it is an entirely different proposition from that made a year ago. We were then going to have 100,000 houses, with a £160 subsidy per house. The right hon. Gentleman is now increasing this subsidy to £260 per house, which means that instead of 100,000 houses, on that basis, there will only be 60,000 houses. That is a different proposition altogether. I should like to remind the House, if hon. Members have not already noticed it, that it is really rather a farce bringing forward this Resolution at all, because, as a matter of fact, months ago the Minister of Health began by giving £260 per house, and on 20th May last he issued a document from the Ministry of Health saying he had decided to give £260 per house instead of the £160, and that this money would be payable in respect of all houses which were commenced on or after 1st April.
I hope, therefore, hon. Members do not delude themselves into thinking that at last we are getting a certain amount of Parliamentary control over this particular question of finance in relation to the Ministry of Health, because this is really an Indemnity Bill. We are really being asked to-day to vote for a Resolution for money which has already been spent by the Minister of Health. However, the question is: Is this subsidy really necessary? Is it really necessary to turn this £160 into £260 per house? To my mind, the difficulty up to the present, and the reason the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman has failed, is not owing to want of private enterprise in putting up houses, but very largely owing to the want of labour; largely owing to the fact that builders have not been able to get sufficient labour to put up houses. Therefore the £260 per house will not really add to the facilities in the future any more than the £160 has done in the past. I do not speak here with any actual special knowledge, not being a builder, but I am assured that in the past speculative builders have been quite content with a profit of £100 per house. Under this propsal of the right hon. Gentleman
the average profit to the speculative and other builder will very likely be no less than £300 per house. In fact, it seems to me that this subsidy is merely going to add to the profits of the builder.
On Saturday last a very interesting prospectus was published in the "Times." It was issued by the Standard Housing Co., Limited. This prospectus stated that a profit of £300 per house would admit of a dividend of 15 per cent. on the preference shares and no less than 45 per cent. on the ordinary shares. The company is issuing £224,000 worth of preference shares at 15 per cent.; on 300 houses that means a profit of £112 per house. They are also issuing 1,650,000 ordinary shares, and on 300 houses, which is the number they propose to build the first year, that means £238 profit per house. That makes up a profit of £350 per house for every one of these houses. That is not all. In a separate advertisement by the same company on the same page of the "Times" is given a further inducement—they do not quite like actually to put it inside the prospectus—and this is what they say:
Furthermore, they anticipate a further profit of from £300 to £500 per house on construction.
This is the company which is going to receive all this subsidy from the Government!
They sell their houses at about the same price as that ruling for a similar kind of house, and at the same time they are, of course, entitled to the £260 Government subsidy on each house. In short, the directors of the Standard Housing Co. estimate that in selling in competition with brick houses they can ensure a minimum profit of £760 per house.…
I have no idea as to whether that is or is not possible. It may be quite impossible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite impossible!"] No doubt this inducement is being held out to the shareholders, and I do think, before we give this money Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be perfectly plain as to whether it is really necessary to turn this £160 subsidy into £260. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear what he is going to drop, and also if he is going to drop those portions voted against by a very large proportion of the party of the Coalitionist Government.

Mr. SEDDON: We have listened this afternoon to a very unusual proposal
which will possibly set up a new procedure. I am not at all afraid of things here that are new, but I am quite convinced that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his week-end conversations must have definite evidence that there were objections to an omnibus Bill like this being put forward. If ever there were reasons for listening to a Debate and the arguments advanced last week against proceeding with this Bill, I think it will be found in the confusion of thought of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He said that the spirit of regret would be evidenced by every local authority if this Bill was dropped. He certainly has overlooked the omnibus character of the Bill. There is in this Bill six items each of which ought to have been first-class measures. In regard to one in particular, that dealing with hospitals, I am convinced that the working-class districts have no desire that the sick and the maimed shall be thrown upon the rates of highly-rated districts while richer districts will be able to evade their responsibility. Therefore I am convinced of this, that when the position of this Bill is properly understood it will be appreciated even by the local authorities whom the hon. Member seems to think he is speaking for at the present time.
On this Financial Resolution we are adopting a very dangerous procedure. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) called attention to what I think has been the universal practice. So far as my knowledge of the House goes—and I think it goes back to the great days of Mr. Gladstone—whatever a Government Department received as a grant from the Treasury was for a year. If that Department did not expend the money or any portion was left, it reverted to the Treasury. I think that was a very, very wise proposal because you may have, during a space of 12 months, a set of circumstances wholly different to the circumstances existing when the grant was made. We are going to accept this as a new principle. There is five and a half millions involved in the raid that is going to be made upon the balance that is in any Department. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not going to cost anything. That is simply playing with the House. It is going to cost five and a half millions of money which otherwise would have gone back to the Treasury. If you are
going to permit this principle it may be only £5,500,000 now, but I can conceive some spendthrift Department next year or the year after taking this as a precedent not for £5,500,000, but for a much larger amount, and then we may be told that the House of Commons in 1920 agreed to the principle that when a Department had not spent the money voted to it, they had a right to carry over the money. I entirely object to that principle. We have been told by the Leader of the House that the Government are willing to drop 13 Clauses of this Bill, but I want to know which they are. My opinion of this Bill is that it is like the curate's egg, good in parts. I want to know whether the parts I disagree with are going to remain in the Bill or not. If the 13 Clauses do not leave out those which I do not approve of, then I am going to fight this Bill upstairs, and if other hon. Members are not satisfied the fight will go on in Committee. For these reasons I think the Minister is in very great danger of losing his Bill altogether.
This Bill contains at least six important and vital questions which ought to be threshed out to the utmost limit. I have been three Sessions in this House, and I have witnessed legislation that has been put through, and Heaven knows, whatever amount of discussion is given to Bills in this House, we still leave a lot of work for the lawyers to do. If you rush Bills through nastily you increase the work of the lawyers, and the worries and responsibilities of those who come under those particular Acts. I have just returned from the country, and I found almost a queue of people waiting for explanations in regard to the Bill we passed last year. I had to admit to them that if the lawyers could not unravel that measure it was quite beyond my capacity, and one lady said to me, "What is the use of sending Members to Parliament if they do not understand the Acts which they place upon the Statute Book." I am in favour of all the humanitarian principles contained in this Bill, but I object to them being rushed through. The question of the hospitals is one that demands a most minute examination. The future of our workhouses and infirmaries is another great question, and so is the question of those suffering from temporary mental derangement. All
those questions require great consideration, and I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), not because of his fundamental principles, but as a Member of Parliament who, when legislation goes through, desires that it will be the best to which we can put our hands. To send a measure dealing with six first-class questions upstairs to a Committee at the fag-end of the Session is doing something which is sure to end disastrously for the Bill itself.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the Government will go on with this Bill, and not drop the Financial Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that, as the Government were going to give up 13 Clauses, he was willing to withdraw his opposition. I do not like the look of that, because one of the Noble Lord's reasons for opposing this measure is on account of its socialistic tendency. What does that mean? Does it mean that some of the less forward spirits in the Coalition are going to put some of their more reactionary Friends on the Committee, and that, when this Bill gets upstairs, the things which a great many of us care about so much, such as hospitals, housing, shell-shock cases, will be dropped? Are those who are afraid of socialistic tendencies going to get their way, and are the progressive Clauses of this Bill, which a great many people welcome, going to be left out? It is all very well to talk about economy, but there are certain things we cannot afford to economise with, and one is the health of the people. If we drop the Financial Clauses, it means that the hospitals, for a long time, will be far worse off than they are now. There are thousands of women throughout the country who are waiting for admission to hospitals, and if these proposals are not proceeded with, they will have to continue to wait. There are thousands of hospitals not doing well, and they need the immediate help of these Financial Clauses.

Mr. SEDDON: The Minister of Health has already stated that he has got £1,000,000 from the King Edward's Fund.

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, and he will need a great deal more. If this Bill is dropped, those who are suffering from shell-shock—and the great majority of
them are heroes—will have to wait indefinitely, and I suppose never will get the treatment which might prevent them from going to a lunatic asylum. With regard to what is being done in reference to housing, after all, it may be a socialistic tendency, but it is a very mild thing. Large houses are being held up for higher rent, while working people are living in dozens in two rooms, and this Bill simply gives them a chance of taking over those houses. I am not speaking as a Socialist or a Labour representative, but as an ordinary woman who has seen the condition of women as far as the need for hospitals go, and seen the poor people in their houses.
I would remind the House that when the Housing Bill went through Committee upstairs, although complaints were made, no other party put forward any practical suggestions, and it is only when this question comes before the House that hon. Members begin to complain. I hope the Minister of Health will be very careful. If he does drop some of these Clauses, I hope it will not be the progressive ones, and I trust he will not be tempted to do this by the cry for economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not let the health of the nation suffer in any way, as it is bound to do if certain Clauses are not kept in this Bill. Throughout the country, I believe, that if this question is fairly put to the people, a great majority of men and women who are looking forward to that better land and a better state of things, would be found to be in favour of this measure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that some of the more progressive Members will be put upon the Committee upstairs.

Dr. ADDISON: We have had on this Bill what I might almost call a Second Eeading Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) dealt with the question of the rates, and he asked if I could arrange that an estimate should be presented to this House, showing what the expenditure falling upon the rates was in regard to the provisions of this Bill, and he suggested that the general question relating to matters of expenditure of local authorities might be further examined by a Committee. But this is nothing like so simple a proposition as it seems. I will give the House one consideration
as an example. Some of the most considerable expenditure of local authorities is the result of Private Bills which they promote in this House, which authorise them to set up tramway undertakings, reservoirs and so on, over which expenditure no Department has any control, and this would involve the expenditure of millions which are the result of private Bill legislation in this House. That is only one explanation of the difficulty in regard to any suggestions for the control of possible expenditure in respect of the rates. As far as I am concerned, being concerned very much with local authorities' expenditure, if it were possible to frame such an estimate and devise a system consistent with the local government system whereby we could have such estimates, then I think it would be all to the good, and greatly to the advantage of the Department over which I preside. It is, however, a very difficult matter, and it will need a great deal of ingenuity and care before we can do it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) inquired what the increase of the rates would be. He will find that 90 per cent. or more of the increase in the rates is due to circumstances over which the Ministry of Health has no manner of control. At the present time the local authorities have practical autonomy in respect of how they spend their current revenue. They raise the money and spend it as they like within, at any rate, very wide limits. We have power in regard to services for which we make grants, such as the Poor Law, and so on, but the vast body of local authority expenditure is under the control neither of this House nor of any Government Department. Therefore the responsibility does not rest on the Ministry of Health. The bulk of the increased expenditure is due to the same facts as are responsible for our own expenditure of more money. The local authorities, for instance, have to spend twice as much and even more in wages as they did formerly. They have to pay more for coal and all materials which they require. I am sorry my right hon. Friend did not pursue his investigations a little further. The paper he had in his hand shows quite clearly that as regards the services in respect of which the Ministry of Health has autho-
rity and in respect of which we have to approve the expenditure, the total increase of rates out of the 11s. quoted is only 4¾d. It is only fair to preserve a sense of proportion in this matter. The oratorical manner of my right hon. Friend seemed to carry with it a suggestion that the increase was due to the Government or to the House, but we must not forget that it is due to causes which make ordinary people spend much more money than formerly. I will not pursue this fascinating topic any further. I will only say that the more we discuss and examine it the better it will be for the country.
I come now to the Resolution, and will reply first to the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). We have decided to drop Clause 6, but there is the point of authorising the carrying over to next year of the unexpended portion of the £15,000,000 already granted by Parliament. The right hon. Baronet asked why we need do that now. My answer is that at the present time about 24,000 houses are contracted for under that subsidy, and the bulk of them are in various stages of construction. A large number of people have entered into contracts to build houses, but it is perfectly clear it will be quite impossible to carry out building schemes in a business-like way unless people can be certain that the subsidy will not be stopped in a fort night's time. People have to make their contracts, arrange for their materials, and see how far they can go, and it is only right they should be assured of getting the subsidy.

Sir F. BANBURY: Would it not be possible to do this next March? Cannot you come down to the House and say, "There are a certain number of houses which are being built now and are not yet finished, and we shall require a subsidy for them. Will the House grant the money?"

Dr. ADDISON: I am quite sure nobody would build on those terms. Builders have to get their plans passed by the local authority and they have to get a certificate from the authority. It is only on the strength of that that they go ahead, and it must be made clear to them that they will receive the money to which they are entitled.

Sir F. BANBURY: Suppose a man informs the Ministry of Health he is prepared to build houses and starts upon the foundations; cannot the Ministry of Health keep the money before the 1st April and hold it for him, and when the 1st of April comes cannot it get another Bill authorising the subsidy?

Dr. ADDISON: No man would build under those conditions. Certainty is the essence of the bargain.

Mr. SEDDON: Is the 5½ millions already allocated?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes; it is allocated in respect of houses already approved, and which I hope will be completed by next April. After all, this is a part of the housing scheme which many hon. Members were most enthusiastic about. It is the part which enables private persons to build houses or cottages on their own land. If they can get the plans approved they get the subsidy. These houses were deliberately kept free of the Rent Restrictions Act. The whole intention and purpose is that people should be encouraged to build houses on their own account. They were to build them as they liked, to charge what rent they liked, and sell them for what they liked.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Could not the local authorities go in and take them over after three months, if unoccupied, under Clause 1? Will you make this point very clear?

Dr. ADDISON: No. They are excluded from that Act. The sole object is to encourage people to do the best they can in the matter of building on their land. These are the only houses to which the subsidy scheme relates, and this is the only part of the housing scheme under which private enterprise can operate in a practical fashion. I think if hon. Members will only examine it they will see it is a part of the housing scheme with which they have more sympathy than with any other. One hon. Member made very disparaging remarks both about myself and the subsidy, but I cannot see what that had to do with the question before the House. As Clause 6 is to be dropped, Clause 2 is the only Clause to which the Financial Resolution applies. The Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), who led the Opposition to this Bill with great ability, welcomed the sugges-
tion that a number of these Clauses might be dropped in Committee. It has been suggested that it is too late this Session to deal with a Bill like this. I would remind the House that this Bill was prepared last summer—last July—and it is owing to circumstances over which none of us have control that it could not be brought in until November. It was very unfortunate. I do not think it is desirable now to enter upon a long recital of the Clauses to be dropped, as it would only lead to lengthy discussion. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the practical course to take will be at the opening of the Committee stage to make this statement [An HON. MEMBER: "No, we should be voting in the dark!"] As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to stating our intentions now, but I repeat that I think the Committee stage would afford a better opportunity. The Bill will come back to the House on Report, and if the House is not satisfied with what has been done in Committee it will then have its opportunity to discuss that. If it is not going to prolong the proceedings to-night, I am perfectly prepared to mention them now. At all events, it will enable me to take up one challenge of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert), who said that there were no provisions in the Bill which promoted economy. That was a statement so wide and sweeping that it tempted mo to think that he had not read the Bill. I would mention the following Clauses, all of which make for economy, both in the raising of money and in regard to local administration. I think that, as my right hon. Friend said, the Committee upstairs, when it has the Clauses in front of it, will not want to throw them out; but, if the Committee is so minded, we shall not press them, because they are not vital now. These Clauses are 7, 8, 15—[HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 6 has also gone"]—I am now speaking of the Clauses which will bring about a saving of cost in respect of local government—

The CHAIRMAN: I find a great deal of difficulty in hearing the right hon. Gentleman and in following what is proceeding, but, in view of the fact that I cannot allow a detailed discussion on the merits of these various Clauses, I think the Committee will agree that the right hon. Gentleman should be permitted to state, in amplification of what has
already been stated by the Leader of the House, the numbers of the Clauses which it is not proposed to press if the Committee upstairs should be against them. That, I take it, is the information which this Committee wishes to have, but we shall not enter into any Debate as to the merits of those Clauses.

Dr. ADDISON: I will mention, in response to the inquiries of hon. Members, the Clauses which we do not wish to press upon the Committee upstairs, and which we shall withdraw if they are averse from proceeding with them. In the first place, I would mention that group of Clauses which would lead to economy in local government. They are Clauses 7, 8, 15, 16, 19 and 23. All these are useful Clauses, although none of them are vital just now; and they are all economical Clauses. Notwithstanding that, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton said that there were none in the Bill. Then there are certain other Clauses which I could not describe under that heading, and with which we certainly shall not proceed if the Committee do not wish it. Clause 9 is a useful Clause, but it is not vital, as I will explain when we get to the Committee stage. Similarly, Clauses 12 and 13 are not urgent Clauses. Clause 17 is one which has been asked for by local authorities, but if it is strenuously objected to we shall not proceed with it. Clause 20 is not an urgent Clause, and I think it may fairly be said that it is not appropriate to an Autumn Session. Clause 22 can be postponed, because we have another year in which to operate the Sections in question; and Clause 25 also can be postponed. I may say that there has been no more misunderstood Clause in the Bill than Clause 25, and I think that, if the Committee does wish to drop it, a good many local authorities will object.
I have mentioned 13 Clauses, in addition to Clause 6, all of which we are prepared to drop if the Committee considers that that should be done, in view of the fact that this is an Autumn Session, of which only four or five weeks remain. I frankly say that they are not as urgent as other parts of the Bill. The first five Clauses, which relate to housing, are urgent, although, as I have said, in the case of Clauses 1 and 3 we are most anxious to accept Amendments. Similarly, it is urgent that we should
make some provision with regard to hospitals on the lines suggested in Clause 11, in an amended form, and the same applies to the proposals contained in Clause 10, with added safeguards. Having regard to the fact that we are so near to the end of the Session, it is evident that we ought to cut out of the Bill anything which is really not urgent, and, from what I have just said, it will be seen that we are most sincerely anxious to meet the wishes of the House of Commons in this matter. If the Committee, on reflection, wishes to take the course suggested, there will be only one Clause in the Bill which could impose any additional expenditure on the rates, namely, the Clause relating to hospitals. We have no desire to force upon the Committee or upon the House at this stage of the Session proposals which are not really critical and urgent. I think the general course of the discussion has shown that it will be very mistaken to cut short the payment of the subsidy for privately erected houses at this stage, when so many people are embarking their money and their enterprise in providing them. My right hon. Friend made the remark, for which I confess I do not think any apology is needed, that there are some kinds of expenditure which it is an extravagance to forego; and, looking at the return which we have got from the increased health expenditure of 4¾d. —that is all it is—which falls upon the rates for the current year, it is undeniable that it is an excellent national investment. It was a commonplace during the War that the C3 population, which everybody talked about, was the result of want of care during infancy and childhood, and of children being brought up in bad conditions, and we all promised ourselves that, once the War was over, we would try and make these things better. The increase in expenditure out of the rates in respect of these services last year was 4¾d. With every regard for preventing extravagance, I am certain that the last form of national expenditure that we should forego is that which is designed to promote and improve the health of the people. I think that the provision for better housing is one such form of expenditure, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will now give us the Resolution.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee are very much indebted to you, Mr. Whitley, for the liberty which you have allowed in this Debate, and a very useful discussion has ensued. From what you have just said, I understand that you do not desire that there should be any further discussion now on the merits of the Bill, and I desire simply to refer to what, I think, the Committee as a whole considers to be a very important point which has been raised, namely, the Parliamentary check which we hope will be imposed in the future upon the rates as well as upon the taxes, by the provision of information with regard to what the charge is likely to be. The Leader of the House, as he always does, met the suggestion in the frankest and most friendly spirit. May I suggest to him that the sooner that Select Committee is set up the better? If it enters upon its work within the next few days, its Report will be speedily in his hands, and will be available for the consideration of Mr. Speaker and of yourself as Chairman of Ways and Means. Those of us who have more than a cursory knowledge of the rules of procedure know that nothing really effective can be done without an alteration in the Standing Order, and that would naturally come next Session. No more legislation connected with rates is at all likely to be passed during this Autumn Session, but I am certain that the sooner it is done the more effective it will be, because it will enable us, as is usual, at the very start of the new Session to make what alteration may be necessary in the Standing Order, and to carry out what, I think, will be a very useful Parliamentary improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As the Government has ostensibly met the critics of this Bill, I think it is well just to point out why, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, some of us are still dissatisfied. I had hoped that the Government's second thoughts might make it possible for us to support this Financial Resolution; but, although I do not propose to go one by one into the Clauses which the Minister of Health is going to keep and those which he is going to drop, I may summarise by saying that, in my opinion and in that of a great many of his critics, he is keeping the most objectionable Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman made an astounding statement this afternoon. He said that Clause 1 was not to be made applicable to people who built houses
under the Government subsidy. In other words, they may profiteer in rent, and they may keep their houses unoccupied as much as they like, and they are not to be made amenable to this new provision. They are also to be free from the operation of the Rent Restriction Act. I think that is the most astounding piece of information that we have had on this Bill. If I built a house with my own money before the War, I am restricted as to rent, and I am liable to have the house taken from me. Apparently, I am put in a far worse position than the man who did not use his own enterprise to build a house, but who comes to the Government. My neighbour builds a house with public money at my expense as a taxpayer, and he is under no limitation as to rent, with no possibility of his house beng commandeered.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is entering into the merits of the Clause. That will be appropriate to the Committee stage when we get there.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I thank you, Sir, for drawing my attention to the fact that this is a Financial Resolution. My point is that the Bill is still disastrous from the financial point of view, because it will mean more and more demands on the taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman told us originally that he hoped we were going to get an economical rent eventually, and that after seven years local authorities would have to level up their rents. He has apparently thrown that over. Each time he comes to the House he asks for a further financial concession as against private enterprise, and there is no doubt he is going to succeed by these new financial proposals, which will have to be borne by those who would otherwise be building houses, in completely destroying private enterprise. He made a point about the C3 population and their surroundings, but he is will worsen their surroundings, because he is not getting these houses built by this socialistic State scheme, and he is making it quite impossible for those who wish to build houses to do what is wanted. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in a rake's progress. Each year he says he is going to solve the housing question, and then he comes forward with wilder proposals, one after another. If my hon.
Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

Lord HUGH CECIL: The Government, as they are too much accustomed to do, are following a very slipshod procedure, instead of a very well recognised procedure which is open to them. The well recognised procedure, in view of what the Government are doing in dropping a large part of their Bill, is to commit the Bill pro forma to a Committee of the whole House, to strike out the various Clauses, to reprint it, and then to send it up to a Standing Committee and let it be reconsidered in its new shape. That would be a far more workmanlike proceeding. At present, as each Clause comes up, the Government will have to vote against the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. All sorts of third courses may be suggested. They say, as though it were quite easy to determine, that they are willing to withdraw these Clauses if the Committee so desires. That may mean anything or nothing— how many of the Committee, which Members of the Committee, what sort of a majority of the Committee? Obviously, if a majority is resolutely voting against a Clause it does not rest with the Government; but if it is only a minority, it is different. It is a matter of procedure, but it is not a workmanlike procedure. The proper way is to commit the Bill pro forma which is a recognised Parliamentary procedure, and then to bring it up in a new shape.
In the second place I want to protest against the doctrine which appeared in the speech of the Minister of Health, and also in the speech of the Leader of the House on another matter, that it is enough to justify expenditure to say that it is wise and is required. That is true if the country is rich, but it is not true in the present state of our finances. We must make a real sacrifice for economy. We are told that the worse form of economy is that which makes a C3 population. We must have a C3 population at this moment in order to save our finances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Of course you must. Hon. Members do not realise the gravity of the financial position, and its immense reaction on the industrial life of the population. They do not understand that bad finance means unemployment and that bad finance will bring down the industrial and commercial life of the
population. Otherwise you will make your population Z123 before you finish. I do earnestly protest against the bringing up of this old doctrine that spending money is the truest form of economy. In our own private life we all know what that ends in; and that it ends in the bank ruptcy court. When a person tells you he is in debt and that it is true economy to spend money we know where he is going; and it is the same with the Government. There is only one way of economising, and that is by cutting down expenditure root and branch. You must give up your expenditure, whether you think it wise or foolish. There must be a new mind in the Ministry of Health and, I am afraid, in the Leadership of the House. There must be real economy in not spending money. I shall certainly vote against this Resolution if it goes to a Division, on the ground that I put forward the other day on the Second Reading of the Bill, that until the House of Commons defeats the Government on a financial proposal we do not know where we are.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Whatever our views may be, they are as strongly felt as those of my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton), and I hope the Committee will think that the time has come for a decision on this matter. The Noble Lord told us that we were adopting a wrong procedure. All I have done is to adopt a simple procedure, and I am quite sure that the procedure he suggests would take much more time. As to its being normal, I have been twenty years in the House, and I do not ever remember it having been adopted. With regard to the second part of his speech, I suggest to him that it is a disadvantage to make a speech after a debate of which he has heard nothing. The result of that is that he has made a statement which is the very reverse of the Government view. He assumes that we take the view that it is enough to say that if expenditure was wise, it was justified. Those hon. Members who were present earlier in the Debate will know that I expressly said that, in the view of the Government and, I hoped, of the Committee, it was not enough, in the present state of our finances, to say that expenditure was wise. It would only take place if we could convince the House, or the Committee, that it was necessary, taking into
account the existing financial position of the country.
As far as the Financial Resolution is concerned it deals only with the continuance of the subsidy to the houses which are being privately built. I cannot understand how my hon. Friends can vote against or oppose that. I quite admit that one of the real evils of the present position—it is more than an evil, it is a curse—is that house-building has passed out of private enterprise. We shall never be right until that is ended. It may be that the conditions of the War have made it impossible to trust private enterprise to build houses. That was our view, but at all events this is the only part of our proposal which does encourage private enterprise, and opens the door to the renewal of the ordinary building of houses. I am very, far from being provocative in any way; I am only appealing to the House to come to a decision. At the opening I made it quite plain that the Government are always ready to listen, and be influenced by the views of Members of this House. We are in that position, and we shall continue to be in it on the assumption that the great majority of this House is not, like my Noble Friend, opposed to the Government, but is supporting it. I have taken that course, because I believe that hon. Members are exercising their influence on the merits of the proposal, without any desire to add to the difficulties of the Government. That is why I make this appeal, and I hope hon. Members will now let us come to a decision.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I hope the Government will not adopt the policy of the Noble Lord, and I desire to protest against that policy. I agree entirely that expenditure must be scrutinised and curtailed. On the other hand, if we are going to let this House of Commons say that it does not matter whether or not we have a C3 population, then a very serious state of affairs will arise for the House of Commons. How many Members on that side of the Committee, who have criticised this Bill, got in on the back of the Prime Minister's statement about a C 3 population? We did not hear anything during the election about its being unwise to spend money on hospitals. They said nothing during the election about housing being wasteful expenditure. Is anyone going to suggest that
the housing difficulty to-day is not part of the War expenditure?

Sir F. BANBURY: This is nothing to do with the War!

Mr. THOMAS: Let the hon. Baronet go and tell the industrial population—not the City—that it has nothing to do with the War. Let him go to the East End of London, where 10 and 12 people are living in one or two rooms. During the War you scrapped the builders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep to the Resolution!"] The remarkable thing is that it is all in the Bill and the Bill is being opposed on this ground. If it is the opinion of the Noble Lord and of many others who cheer him that it does not matter if we have a C 3 population or not—

Lord H. CECIL: We shall have a much worse population if you spend so much.

Mr. THOMAS: —then I hope they will show their opinions by going into the Lobby against the Bill.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I cannot allow the Debate to conclude with such a complete misrepresentation of the views which many of us hold in this quarter of the House with regard to the Financial Resolution. Because we are opposed to bad finance it cannot possibly be said that we are opposed to measures that make for the health and well-being of the population. In my judgment, and I agree with the right hon. Member for South Molton, economy is almost the most important thing with which the Government can deal to-day. If we continue this wasteful dribbling out of public money, sometimes in small sums and sometimes in largo sums, then, as the Noble Lord says, so far from having a C 3 population we shall inevitably have a D 4 population, because that is the result of economic laws which none of us can prevent. The Bill is very wide, and I think the whole course of the Debate has shown that the view just expressed by the Leader of the House, that the decision is now absolutely confined within the four corners of the Financial Resolution, when all through the Debate has gone, not on the letter of the Resolution, but on the spirit of it, is ideally misrepresenting the position. I maintain that we must assert the principle of economy at every possible opportunity and avoid all new expenditure unless it can be shown to be abso-
lutely necessary, until we know more about the finances of the country than we do to-day and until we are more certain that the measures which are proposed to achieve the object we all have at heart are better adapted to the purpose than can be expected when the material of six first-class Bills is crowded into one.
Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to Housing of the People, Public Health, and Local Government, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants under Section 1 of the Housing (Additional Powers), Act, 1919, in respect of houses completed within two years of the passing of that Act or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister of Health may in any special case allow.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Amendment on Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) [3rd November].

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 9 of Corn Production Act, 1917.)

Section nine of the Act of 1917 shall be amended as follows:—

(ii) For the words in Sub-section (1) from
(b) that for the purpose of" to "as the case may be," both inclusive, there shall be substituted the words—
(b) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute the necessary repairs (not being repairs which the tenant is liable to execute) to any buildings on the land being repairs required for the proper cultivation or working thereof,
may serve notice, in the case of neglect by an owner to execute repairs, on the owner requiring him to execute the necessary repairs within such time as may be specified in the notice, and in any other case on the occupier of the land requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister may give for securing that the cultivation shall be in accordance with the rules of good husbandry or for securing such improvement or change as foresaid in the manner of cultivating or using the land, as the case may be":

(iii) For the words in the proviso to Subsection (1) "or whether it is undesirable in the interest of food production that the change should apply to any portion of land included in the notice" there shall be substituted the words "or whether the production of food on the land can be increased in the national interest by the occupier by means of such an improvement or change as aforesaid or whether the repairs required to be executed are necessary for the proper cultivation or working of the land, or whether the time specified in the notice for the execution of such repairs is reasonable":

(iv) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (2):—
(2A) Where a notice other than a notice under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section has been served under this Section on the occupier of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute some work in connection with the cultivation of the land and that person unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and to a further penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for every day during which the default continues after conviction:

Provided that—

(a) proceedings for an offence under this Sub-section shall not be instituted except by the Minister; and
(b) the Minister shall be entitled, notwithstanding that proceedings have been instituted under this Sub-section, to execute any work specified in the notice, and to recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default any expenses reasonably incurred by him in so doing, and the right to institute any such proceedings shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the Minister has executed the work specified in the notice":

"(2B) Where a notice has been served under paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this Section on the owner of any land requiring him within a time specified in the notice to execute repairs and the owner fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, the Minister may authorise the tenant to execute the repairs, and a tenant so authorised shall be entitled to execute the repairs accordingly and at any time after the repairs have been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing, in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were com-
pensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908":

(v) For the words in Sub-section (3) "make such order as seems to them required in the circumstances, either authorising the landlord to determine the tenancy of the holding, or determining the tenancy by virtue of the order" there shall be substituted the words "by order determine the tenancy of the holding or of any part thereof":

(vi) The following new Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (3):—
(3A) Where it is represented to the Minister by an agricultural committee that the owner of any agricultural estate or land situate wholly or partly in the area of the committee, whether the estate or land or any part thereof is or is not in the occupation of tenants, cultivates or manages the estate or land in such a manner as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon, the Minister may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable so to do in the national interest, and after making such enquiry as he thinks proper and after taking into consideration any representations made to him by the owner, by order appoint such person as he thinks fit to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land or any part thereof:

Provided that—

(a) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except where the person appointed by the order to act as receiver and manager of the estate or land is appointed to act in the place of a person previously appointed under this Sub-section, take effect until a period of six months has elapsed after the date on which notice of the order having been made was given to the owner of the estate or land, and the owner may at any time during the said period appeal against the order to the High Court in accordance with rules of court, and where any such appeal is made the order shall not take effect pending the determination of the appeal; and
(b) an order made under this Sub-section shall not, except with the consent of the owner, extend to a mansion house, garden, or policies thereof, or to any land which at the date of the order forms part of any park or of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with the mansion house, and which is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house; and
(e) the order shall not operate to deprive any person, except with his consent, of any sporting rights
1605
over the estate which do not interfere with the production of food on the estate; and
(d) any person appointed to act as receiver and manager of any agricultural estate or land under this Section shall render a yearly report and statement of accounts to the owner or his agent and to the Minister;
(e) the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers conferred on the Minister under this Section:

The Minister may by an order made under this provision apply for the purposes of the order, with such modifications as he thinks fit, any of the provisions of Section twenty-four of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, which relates to the powers, remuneration and duties of receivers appointed by mortgagees, and authorise the receiver to exercise such other powers vested in the owner of the estate or land as may be specified in the order and may be reasonably necessary for the proper discharge by him of his duties as receiver and manager:

Provided that the receiver and manager shall not have power to sell or create any charge upon the estate or land or any part thereof except with the consent of the owner or with the approval of the High Court obtained upon an application made for the purpose in accordance with rules of court":

(vii) In Sub-section (4) for the words "if within throe months after the Board have entered on any land the person who was in occupation of the land at the time of the entry so requires" there shall be substituted the words "if within one month after the Minister has entered on or appointed a receiver and manager in respect of any land the owner of the land so requires"; and for the words "person so previously in occupation" there shall be substituted the word "owner":

(viii) In Sub-section (9) the words "in respect of which any notice is served or order made under this Section or" shall be repealed, and after the word "section," where that word last occurs, there shall be inserted the words "in that behalf":

(ix) The following new Sub-sections shall be inserted after Sub-section (10):—
(11) For the purposes of this Section the rules of good husbandry shall include—

(a) the maintenance and clearing of drains, dykes, embankments, and ditches:
(b) the maintenance and proper repair of fences, gates and hedges:
1606
(c) the execution of repairs to buildings, being repairs which are necessary for the proper cultivation and working of the land, and, in the case of land in the occupation of a tenant, are required to be executed by the occupier of the land under the contract of tenancy:

and references in this Section to cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry shall be construed accordingly:

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be taken to impose upon a tenant the obligation to maintain or clear drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches where such maintenance or clearance is prevented by subsidence of the land or the blocking of the outfalls which are not under the control of the tenant, or to make a tenant liable for such maintenance or clearance of drains, dykes, embankments, or ditches, or the maintenance or repair of fences, hedges, and gates, where such work is not required to be done by him under his contract of tenancy or the custom of the country."
(12) Where the Minister is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Sub-section applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him to cut down or destroy the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, and where any such notice is given the provisions of Sub-section (2A) of this Section shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as if the land were land which was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and as if a notice had been served on the occupier under Subsection (1) of this Section.
The expression 'occupier' in this Sub-section means in the case of any public road the authority by whom the road is being maintained, and in the case of unoccupied land the person entitled to the occupation thereof.
Regulations may be made under this Act for prescribing the injurious weeds to which this Subsection is to apply.

Amendment proposed, in paragraph (ii), in lieu of paragraph (b) left out, to insert the words
(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest and without injuriously affecting the persons interested in the land be maintained or increased by the occupier by means of an improvement in the existing method of cultivation or by the use of the land for arable cultivation; or
(c) that the occupier of land has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance being, in the case of land occupied by a tenant, works which he is liable to execute under the conditions of his tenancy or rendered necessary by his act or default; or
(d) that the owner of land in the occupation of a tenant has unreasonably neglected to execute thereon the necessary works of maintenance, not being works to which the preceding paragraph applies."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out paragraph (b).—[Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and' ["national interest and"], stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Mr. LANE-FOX: When the Debate was adjourned a few nights ago there had been a long discussion on this Amendment, in which the Government sought to reinstate the very drastic powers for the control of cultivation, especially as regards compulsory ploughing up of grass land, which were eliminated in Committee. The general agricultural opinion throughout the House with very few exceptions, showed itself throughout the Debate to be hostile to the Government proposal, and I cannot help hoping that in the interval which the right hon. Gentleman has had to consider the Debate he may have come to the more reasonable view of realising that the strongest and best and most moderate agricultural opinion is against him, and that this provision is bound to be detrimental, not only to the Bill, but to the agricultural interest. We do not object to the State endeavouring to secure good husbandry and good cultivation, but I strongly object, and I think the bulk of agriculturists object, to any system by which the State can enforce, through Committees which may be interested, a complete change of cultivation. That is to be done now without any compensation, and it is claimed that it can be, and should be, done, and that the State has a right to demand it, in view of the guarantees which have been given. The State has no right whatever to demand a quid pro quo for the guarantees which were given for wheat growing. That was done for the benefit of the country, and it was done to maintain the wages of the agricultural labourer, and the country has no right to demand any conditions in com-
pensation. I am prepared to admit, and I think everyone will who takes a reasonable view of the matter, that the country, in view of the fact that land is limited, has a right to demand that no land should be wasted. The country has a right, on general principles, to demand that cultivation should be good. That we concede, but beyond that we are not prepared to allow the Government to go if we can prevent it, and I certainly propose to vote against them on this Amendment. No man can prescribe what is best for another man's farm, and it is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us there is no injustice in this connection, because there is always an appeal to an arbitrator. Anyone who understands agriculture knows that, however expert the arbitrator, if he is a stranger to the land he cannot have as good an opinion of the effect of a certain cultivation on certain portions of a man's farm as a man who has had experience of the farm for 10 or 20 years, and perhaps has the experience of many generations behind him. Everyone who has real expert knowledge of agriculture knows that that is so. That I believe to be the moderate and general opinion of all agriculturists in the House with very few exceptions.
The hon. Member who has now moved the rejection of the Amendment voted for the Government in the Committee. Several others, to try to help my right hon. Friend, who has been so extremely courteous in the Debate, flirted with a proposal of this kind in the hope of finding some way out, but we have all come back to the other view, and we have come to sec that this proposal, if he succeeds in putting it back into the Bill, will be absolutely fatal to the confidence of the farmer, which is the ostensible reason for the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend must realise that every day the opinion of farmers throughout the country is turning more strongly against the Bill, and this proposal of his is one of the chief reasons for that. Two things that the farmer dreads are State control, ignorantly and perhaps unfairly exercised by a prejudiced Committee, and, in addition, of course, the possibility of losing his farm. One of these things my right hon. Friend is proposing to rivet on him permanently, and the farmer has no great faith in the guarantees. He does not believe they will last very long. But on this point that we are discussing
he holds very strong views indeed, and no one who went through the ploughing-up campaign during the War can fail to know that you cannot trust a Committee to be absolutely fair and without prejudice and without personal feeling in these matters. I shall certainly vote against the Amendment, and what is more, if it is inserted in the Bill it will have a very considerable effect in making, I think, the great bulk of those who really understand and are interested in agriculture vote also against the Third Reading. The Government may summon the Labour party from the smoking room, they may bring up their battalions of private secretaries and force their Bill through, but if they do that in violation of all the best agricultural opinion which can be brought to bear upon the Bill, and which is strongly opposed to him on this matter at present, if they force the Bill on the country and on the agricultural world, they will realise that they will be going a very long way to destroy the confidence of the farmer.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): This very interesting and instructive discussion raises an issue of great practical importance which will have a very considerable bearing on the future of agriculture in this country. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has suggested that the Government are looking forward to carrying this proposition with the aid of the Labour party. I am afraid that if we depended entirely upon the Labour party in this House we should have a very poor chance of carrying this Amendment, and, certainly, if we did depend upon their votes I do not think I should have chosen Monday for the purpose of carrying such an Amendment. I trust the Government will get the support of all parties to this proposition, because it has not emanated from the Labour party, it has not emanated from the Liberal party, and I cannot say that it has emanated from the Conservative party as a party. It is a proposal that has been put forward by those who are concerned about the decline in agricultural prosperity in this country. It is the result of the Report of a Commission. It was recommended by the farmers on that Commission, and I think that the only people who did not subscribe to the proposition were the Labour Members of the Commission.
Therefore, it is in no sense of the term a sectional demand. It is a demand which has arisen out of a very grave and very urgent national need which is above all interests and above all the views of any party in the State. I agree with my hon. Friends as to the general proposition that our principle ought to be as little interference on the part of the State with the natural course of trade and industry as is compatible with justice to the individual and the interests of the community. I belong to a profession which the State has thought it incumbent in the general interests to restrict and superscribe in every direction. It is a business where we have not been able to secure from the State, or anyone else, a minimum wage. The State has only been anxious to prescribe a maximum wage, beyond which we cannot go. Speaking as an old solicitor, I certainly have no liking for State interference. State interference means for my profession taxing our bill of costs. Therefore, I do not like it. I would prefer the principle of non-interference.
Why have we thought it necessary to introduce this Bill? It arose out of the conditions that were forced upon us by the exigencies of the great War. All those who were responsible for directing affairs during the War became very painfully conscious before it had proceeded very far that owing to the neglect of all parties in the State this country had been reduced to a condition where the starvation of its population was a temptation to a foreign Power assailing it. We only produced enough wheat in this country for something like one-fourth of the population if the harvest was good, and less than that if the harvest was an average one. That was a temptation to a foreign enemy that was attacking us to adopt methods that lead to starvation as a means of conquering this country. We whose food depended upon what we could bring across the seas were attacked by a hidden foe, and at one moment we were threatened with starvation. The policy of increased food-production began then. We found it necessary to decrease our imports as a means of national security, and to increase above all, our food supplies. There was a second discovery as a result of the War, and that was that there was a smaller percentage of able-bodied men
fit to defend their country in Great Britain than in any enemy country. That is an avowal which ought to make us pause, because it is not merely a question of defence but a question of the health, of the fitness of the population. Our figures showed a smaller percentage of fit men than in any belligerent country. Side by side with that we found that agriculture, the healthiest of all occupations, had gone down by hundreds of thousands. Whereas fifty years ago you had something between one-third and one-fourth of the population of Great Britain—I am not speaking of Ireland—working in and around the land, when the War broke out you had something between one-ninth and one-tenth only of the population on the land. It was not merely that the population engaged in agriculture had not increased in proportion to the rest of the population, but there had been a decrease by hundreds of thousands of those actively engaged in that occupation, and that meant a decrease of the population on the land by something like 3,000,000. Where have they gone? They have gone from the healthiest, the soundest of all occupations, an occupation which is the basis of all prosperity, and the basis of security for this nation, into trades which depress the physical vitality of the people, under conditions that wear out nerve, heart and soul. That is what had happened in the course of fifty years That is what the War brought home to us.
I have referred to food production. I wonder how many there are who realise how much food we import now. I do not mean the food that you can only grow in tropical climates, but food which the soil and climate of this country are capable of producing. I do not say that even with the best of cultivation you could produce it all—that is not my argument—but you could produce a good deal of it. Last year we imported into this country for consumption—I have deducted what we re-exported—£500,000,000 worth of food which this soil and this climate are capable of producing. That is at a time when the foreign exchanges are against us, and when the fact that we have to buy so much means that when we do export more expensive things our sovereign is so depressed in the markets of the world that it cannot look the
American dollar straight in the face. If you want the British sovereign to look the dollar or any other denomination of coin straight eye to eye, you will have to increase production, and, above all, to increase the production of food. It is a national weakness, it is a national folly, it is a national scandal that £500,000,000 worth of food should have to be imported into this country when its soil is capable of producing more. If any man who knows agriculture is prepared to get up in this House and to say that Great Britain cannot produce more food, then, I agree, there is no case for this Bill. Any man, on the other hand, who believes that Britain can produce substantially more food, is bound to support every proposal, however drastic, which insists upon increased production, because the security of this land depends upon the increase of agricultural production. That is the justification for this Bill.
I come to the question whether increased production is possible. Take countries with the same soil as ours. Take Germany or Denmark. The soil of Britain, on the whole—I am talking of the cultivable area of Great Britain—compared with the cultivable area of Germany or Denmark, is better than that of Germany or Denmark. There is no man who examines the capabilities of Germany and Denmark and of this country who will not own that the soil of this country, taking it as a whole, is infinitely richer in natural capacity than that of either of those two countries. Does anyone say that the produce per acre in this country is comparable to that of cither Germany or Denmark? You have only to take some of the very remarkable figures that were incorporated in the Report of a very able Commission presided over by Lord Selborne when he was President of the Board of Agriculture. So far as I recollect, ho was the first Minister to press for this policy, and he pressed very hard for it. In order to show that it was not altogether representative of the Labour party, as my hon. Friend below the Gangway seems to apprehend, I will give a few names of members of the Committee who have not yet joined the Labour party. There are Lord Selborne, Chas. Bathurst now Lord Bledisloe—

Mr. LANE-FOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any of these
Gentlemen are in favour of the Amendment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I suggest that the policy now incorporated in this Bill is the direct result of the report which they made. Other names are Charles Douglas, Ailwyn Fellowes, Fitzherbert-Brockholes—a leading Lancashire agriculturist—A. D. Hall, Rowland E. Prothero, Edward G. Strutt—one of the most scientific farmers. This is what they say, comparing the produce of 100 acres cultivated in Britain and in Germany:
On each 100 acres of cultivated land, the British farmer feeds from 45 to 50 persons; the German fanner feeds from 70 to 75 persons. The British farmer grows 15 tons of corn; the German farmer grows 33 tons. The British farmer grows 11 tons of potatoes; the German farmer grows 55 tons. The British farmer produces four tons of meat; the German farmer produces 4¼ tons. The British farmer produces 17½ tons of milk; the German farmer produces 28 tons. The British farmer produces a negligible quantity of sugar; the German farmer produces 2¾ tons.
I could quote figures as to what happens with regard to Denmark, but taking the number of people employed, in Germany you have 18.3 people engaged on every 100 acres of cultivated land; in Great Britain you have 5.8. That shows, from every point of view, that British agriculture has not reached the limit of its capacity, and it is essential, in the interests of national prosperity and safety, that some step—and that a strong step—should be taken to increase the productivity of the land, and the number of those who are engaged in this healthy occupation. It was in consequence of figures of that kind that the Selborne Committee made a recommendation that in order to increase production on the scale which we believe to be necessary it would be essential to increase largely the area of land devoted to arable cultivation. And they have got this remarkable passage:
It must be explained to landowners, farmers, and agricultural labourers alike that the experience of this War has shown that the methods and results of land management and of farming are matters involving the safety of the State, and are not of concern only to the interests of individuals. They must be plainly told that the security and welfare of the State demand that the agricultural land of the country must gradually be made to yield its maximum production both in foodstuffs and in timber.
I remember the time that was taken by Lord Selborne over it. He examined the matter very carefully, with the assistance of these experienced associates, and that is the conclusion he came to. He came to the conclusion that it is necessary to give a guarantee to the farmer that would justify him in taking the steps necessary for the purpose of increasing the area of cultivation.
He pointed out, in addition to those things which I have already dwelt upon, that the acreage under arable had gone down by something like 4,000,000 acres in the course of 40 years in this country, and that from the point of view of what is essential to the State, agriculture was a declining industry. In view of the condition shown by the first test to which it was put, the State began to realise the peril, for which every party alike was equally responsible. While all this was going on, while every country in Europe, and in the world, was making gigantic efforts to increase its agricultural cultivation to maintain the population on the land, and if possible to increase the number of people engaged in cultivation of the land, all parties alike almost entirely neglected to carry out the measures necessary in order to secure what we found in 1915–16 and 1917 was essential to our national life and honour. We should see that we take heed from the warning received then, and take the necessary steps for the purpose of increasing the cultivation of the soil and the food supplies which are grown at our own doors. That is why we introduce this Bill. My hon. Friends say, "Give a guarantee." Neither the farmer nor anyone else will do his best until he has a sense of security. No trader will do it—I will come to that by and by—no business man will do it, and you cannot expect a farmer to do so. He has got risks which an ordinary trader has not got. He has got labour risks, and one knows what they have been during the last two or three years. But every business has got that risk. He has got the risk of foreign markets. Every business has got to face that risk. But he has got the risks of climate. I agree that under no guarantee that an Act of Parliament can give, will you be able to shield him from those risks, but it can save him at any rate from bankruptcy, as a result of responding to the appeal which
the State makes to increase cultivation in the interests of all. Therefore, in spite of a great many difficulties which one's general attitude towards things involves, I found myself a convert to this Report, and supported the guarantee. I felt that the interests of the State were paramount, and that, although there was a great deal to be said against the State interfering to the extent of guaranteeing the produce of any particular trade or business, this was a matter concerning the life of the community, which justified us, if we were going to get increased cultivation and increased home production of food supplies, in going to the extent of guaranteeing this particular industry.
8.0 P.M.
That amount of State interference my hon. Friends accept. It is certainly a very serious one for a very overburdened community like ours, but they will agree that we were justified in this. But has the State no right to impose any conditions to a liability of this very considerable character which it is prepared to take for years to come? I maintain that it has. My hon. Friends say "Appeal to the farmer, the landlord, the agent, the agricultural labourer. They will respond to your appeal, and they will increase the area of the arable land." I have no doubt of the patriotism of the agricultural interests, but what I doubt is whether you will get that regularly and systematically, not from some people, but from the whole body of agriculturists. Suppose you make your appeal, and a certain number of men respond handsomely; there may be others who will not respond so well, and some who will not respond at all. They have plenty of excuses, fairly good excuses. The labour market is a worry at the present moment. There is not merely the difficulty of getting labour, but there is the fact that the cost of labour has gone up enormously, and there is a grave inducement therefore to the farmer to pursue that form of agriculture which will make him less dependent upon labour than the form which makes him more dependent. Therefore, what would happen would be this. The man who would do well this year would say next year, "What is the good of my doing well? Look at my neighbours. I gave my full quota. That man gave three-quarters of his quota. That man gave two-thirds. That man gave no
part of his quota." The result would be that your attempt to get it by voluntary means would break down completely. It is no use having this Bill unless you increase the area of cultivation in this country. What the House of Commons, if I may respectfully say so, has to decide is this: Is it worth our while as a nation making a great and a special effort to increase the home supplies of food, the food grown in this country? If you do think it worth while you can only do it by breaking up much more land than is now under the plough. There is no agriculturist who can challenge that proposition. I say that you cannot do that by any voluntary system except during a war when you get the tremendous pressure of an intense passionate concentrated national feeling. To attempt to do it in normal times when the farmer is labouring under abnormal difficulties is simply to attempt a complete failure. I say that, if you are going to carry out this Report, you can only do so by means of Parliament saying that powers must be given under proper safeguards and under fair conditions to compel the necessary cultivation such as you had in the course of the War. Apart from that, I venture to predict that there would be failure, and that would be a serious responsibility for the House of Commons.
I agree with my hon. Friend that farmers do not wish anyone to go round and tell them what fields they should break up. There is no part of the community which would resent it more than farmers. I know farmers well. I have lived amongst them for thirty years. They resent it from their agents. The popular agent is the agent who does not bother them. They do not like any interference, not even with those who are intimately associated with the land, and I know, therefore, the prejudice, the natural prejudice, the rooted prejudice, the hereditary prejudice, that they have against anybody who comes down and tries to show them how to conduct their business. All the same, this is of paramount national interest. Unless you have power of this kind it is no use passing Acts of Parliament on guarantees; it is no use passing Acts of Parliament saying you want to increase the cultivation of this country. You will not get it. Once it is demonstrated that by increasing
the production the farmer himself benefits, then I agree it will be quite unnecessary to interfere. But as a means of starting and initiating this policy you must have a certain pressure by the county committees for the farmers to do so. I am making this appeal as one who realises intensely the dangerous condition to which this country was brought by at least half a century of the blindest, grossest, most stupid neglect of this great industry by all parties in the Slate—something which is incomprehensible now that we can look back. We are all equally culpable. The thing that matters is, not what we said when in opposition but what we did when we had the chance, whether we belong to the one party or the other? There is no doubt that, taking this country as a whole, agriculture has been more meanly treated than in any of the great countries of the world, and that has been a folly of the first magnitude. It may yet prove to be disastrous.
I should like to point out other dangers, and I hope I shall not be mistaken if I do. This country is a little top-heavy. The percentage of people on the soil is a small one. I have many a time discussed these things with Foreign Ministers, and they all said to me, "Well, this country is pretty safe. The bulk of our people are engaged on the land." It is difficult to discuss these problems, but it would be a mistake, a great mistake, to shut your eyes to that. The safe country is the country where you have a large percentage of the population engaged in the calmest, steadiest of all pursuits, a country where the vast majority of the people are in these avocations. If it begins to slide the peril increases. It is in the interest of the stability of Britain, not merely of its security against foreign peril, but in the interests of the security of society itself, that you should have a larger percentage of the population engaged in the cultivation of the soil. That is a bigger problem, but I should like men of all parties to think of that—of the difficulties of getting and of retaining men on the land. There is a very fertile passage in this Report: paragraph 19. It is worth reading. It is full of suggestions. If we want to make this country safe from external perils all those who are responsible, whether as Ministers, or
as Members, or as guides, in Parliament or out of Parliament, for its future and for its destiny ought to think of the problem in such terms. Meanwhile, we suggest this as a means of encouraging a process which is essential to the strength and safety of this country.

Colonel MILDMAY: The intervention of the Prime Minister in the Debate has been deeply interesting and I should like to say a few words with regard to it. I wish first to say that I have sat continuously through the Debates on the Report stage of this Bill and so far have supported the Government in every Division, as I thought I was acting in accordance with the desires and wishes of my farmer constituents. But now I do not find myself at liberty to support this paragraph. With regard to the Prime Minister's address, incidentally he began by saying that, in his profession of the law they had no minimum wage but only a maximum wage. Unfortunately we have found that maximum wage pretty substantial when we have to deal with the legal profession. With the very greatest deference to the Prime Minister, I think he hailed to seize the nature of our objections to this proposal, and altogether failed to meet the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), whose argument he left unanswered. He said that we must have increased production, and we agree. Does this particular provision mean increased production in the right sense? Unfortunately, as it seems to me, it means, I think, that the energy of the agiculturist will be directed in a wrong direction.
The Prime Minister's aims were admirable. He wants increased production, he wants more men employed upon the land. I think I may say we all want that, but we do maintain, we who throughout our lives have been familiar with agricultural conditions, that the Government, is going the wrong way to work. I myself am deeply concerned with the well-being of two agricultural estates, in Devon and in Kent: and it has always been my endeavour to keep in mind the view that the landlord and agricultural tenant are partners in the agricultural industry, and that the object of that partnership should be the highest and most efficient production. I have shown my anxiety, while this Bill has been under discussion, to treat the farmers generously. We all wish to do that, but here in this paragraph (b) is
embodied a principle which regard for the interest of every class in the community compels me to oppose. Under it a farmer may be served with notice "requiring him to cultivate the land in accordance with such directions as the Minister in London may give." It is quite true, as the Prime Minister said, that, on the spur of the moment, and in a War emergency, compulsory powers were given to the Agriculture Minister to plough up grassland and that compensation was provided in eases where such an operation resulted in loss. Now it is proposed to make these powers of the Ministry permanent, and, to put it plainly, for it comes to that, to enable the Ministry to dictate to agriculturists how they should run their industry. That is a very different state of affairs from any other industry of the country. Would the Government dare to dictate to manufacturers what they should produce? It may be argued that it will not be Whitehall which will do this, and that the county agricultural committees will be the judges. It is quite true that the committees will be consulted, but, if the Whitehall official is cranky, and if he is one of those theoretical agriculturists whom we all dread, and whom farmers do not trust a yard, he can ignore the county agricultural committee. Honestly, and I think this must be admitted, farmers are aghast at the perpetuation of outside dictation as to methods of cultivation, and rightly so when we remember the costly mistakes which were made on all sides during the War in connection with the Ploughing Order. Many fields which were ploughed at that time were so unsuitable that it will take a very long time to get the land back into good heart again, and to bring it into the proper rotation of crops. To see what has happened breaks the heart of an owner of agricultural land who takes an interest and a pride, as he ought to do, in the efficient cultivation of the land he owns.
In Devonshire all our farms are comparatively small, and I think they do not average more than 160 acres. The farmers there compare favourably with any in England. They work very hard themselves, are not afraid to take off their coats, and put their hearts into the work. Practically they have security of tenure. On the estate with which I am connected there has been no notice to quit for over fifty years. That is
nothing to boast of, as it is what is the case elsewhere. I maintain that those farmers, who have been brought up on the land, and who have studied the requirements of the soil in their particular localities, and who are familiar with the local climatic conditions—and there are great variation in climate and in soil at short distances within a county—understand a great deal better than any theoretical agriculturist in London how to make their own holdings most productive. They have got to depend on the land for a living, and you may trust them to grow the particular crop which will ensure the most productive return. We have heard a great deal about enlightened self-interest; enlightened self-interest will prompt them to extract that utmost return from the land which is so desirable in the national interest. In fact, the individual interests of the farmers and the national interests are, in this sense, and always will be, identical. Surely our experience during the War has taught us that the less any industry has to do with Government Departments the better. I think that even members of the Government would admit this, and that they are not anxious, I dare say, to interfere more than they regard as necessary. Representing an agricultural constituency, I have been taught by my constituents to dislike outside interference; but I do recognise that the enforcement by a superior authority of good husbandry in cultivation is another matter; for, if a farmer fails to keep his land clean, and allows it to be overrun with thistles and the like, it would be a source of serious injury to his neighbours.
Some hon. Members have sought to persuade the House that farmers have admitted that ploughing orders were a blessing in disguise. The hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. J. Gardner) and for Lincolnshire had adduced instances where, in war time, landlords and tenant farmers, forced unwillingly to plough up pasture, have afterwards grown thousands and thousands of potatoes, and have admitted that the compulsory action had been their "financial salvation." That may be the case in Scotland, though I have found on my own property that Scottish tenant farmers are pretty astute; Scotch farmers may be so ignorant as to the most remunerative crops to grow on their own holdings, but we do not keep such farmers in Devonshire. The Prime Minister
said just; now that, the Government having guaranteed minimum prices for cereals, must have something in return, and that there must be a quid pro quo. Surely the return for the guaranteed minimum prices is increased production. There you have your guid pro quo and a very full, sufficient and adequate return it will be in itself, if the view of the Government, that the scheme is logically contrived, is correct. I may say that, in Devonshire, we are in the rather peculiar position that we do not benefit by this minimum price for cereals because we are not in the habit of growing wheat for sale. In South Devon we have a very excellent breed of cattle, which is now only beginning to attract universal attention. It is going ahead so fast that it will knock out other breeds before very long, as exporters are fast recognising. Our farmers have done wonders of late to improve this breed, and they have devoted the whole of their energies to that purpose. Consequently, they are almost exclusively beef producers and dairymen, and they will not benefit one halfpennyworth by this guaranteed minimum price for cereals. At the same time you are calling on them to submit to all sorts of disabilities on that account. They will not benefit a halfpennyworth by the "quo" of the guaranteed price, and yet the Government ask them to submit to the "quid" of a paralysing control by Government officials. I can assure the Government that the County Agricultural Committees do not want the powers with which it is proposed they shall be entrusted. Then there is the question of expense. All this kind of thing must mean an immense staff. There are appeals to this and that tribunal. I suppose we ought to be very grateful for such safeguard, but they all mean money, and at a moment when every additional penny of expenditure ought to be jealously watched. I say it would be much better to free the farmers from expensive control which would only clog the farming industry with artificiality, for farmers are much more likely to help themselves, than to be helped by a Government Department in London. I feel bound, from the national as well as from the agricultural point of view, to support the excision of this paragraph.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I should like to say on behalf of myself and my Friends who oppose this Amendment that our
aims and objects are precisely the same as those of the Prime Minister, namely, to improve the position of agriculture, but our methods are different. The Prime Minister quoted a good deal about conditions in Germany and drew a rather gloomy picture of our position as compared with agriculture in Germany. I should like to ask whether those conditions in Germany have been brought about by control? I They have not. There is no control in Germany of agriculturists and there has not been control of farmers in Germany. That condition if it is better than ours, which I do not admit, has been brought about by State encouragement which is quite a different thing from control. The right hon. Gentleman said, with regard to Germany, that so many men were employed per 100 acres and so few per 100 acres were employed on our farms, but the real point of view is what is the production per head of the men employed in agriculture, and you will find that the production per head is higher in this country than in any other country in Europe. Further, when you come to consider what is the production per acre of arable land, you will and that the weight of food grown on an average acre of arable land in this country is heavier than the weight of food grown on an average acre of arable land in Germany. Then the right hon. Gentleman founded the rest of his observations very largely on the Selborne Report. The particular point under discussion now is as to whether farmers should or should not be ordered to plough up grass land, and what does the Selborne Report say on that point? It says:—
The landowners and the farmers may be left to … come to an agreement (which is essential) about the relaxation of covenants against the ploughing of grass land or of any others which tend to dis-couragre good farming. We are satisfied that they will have no difficulty in doing so much more satisfactorily than the State could for them.
That is an absolute and complete answer to the Prime Minister's arguments. He invokes Germany first of all on wrong grounds, and then he invokes the aid of Lord Selborne's Report in support of the Government Amendment ordering farmers to plough up grass land. Lord Selborne's Report recommends the precise opposite, that farmers should not be compelled to plough up grass land, but that those arrangements should be left between the owner and the
farmer to fix up themselves. Having mentioned those points, I do not know that I need refer to the Prime Minister's speech in any further detail, but I should like to say that we thoroughly recognise that the Prime Minister is an ardent supporter of agriculture, only we cannot agree with his methods, and I do not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech where these proposals emanated from, that the industry should be placed under Government control. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary last week who was responsible for these proposals, and he has not answered me yet. I hope when he replies this evening that he will tell us where these proposals emanated from. I have my own notions on the subject. There was a suggestion that they came from the agricultural community and from the farmers. I happen to be Chairman of the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture, and I called a meeting to discuss this very matter ten days ago, and they, with one dissentient, passed, otherwise unanimously, this resolution:
This Chamber disapproves of any provisions in the Agriculture Bill tending to the control of the industry other than regulations for good husbandry in the mutual interests of farmers with regard to hedges, ditches, and obnoxious weeds.
I believe that to be the general view of farmers throughout the whole of this country, and not only of farmers, but of owners of land and of all others who understand the agricultural industry. I do not call these provisions with respect to securing good husbandry control, as they seem to me to be Regulations made in the interests of the industry for the mutual benefit of farmers. One farmer, by not cleaning his ditches, cutting his hedges, or disposing of his obnoxious weeds, can injure an adjoining farm, and I have always felt, as a matter of practical experience, that some authority was needed which could compel another farmer, a man who was not your tenant, for instance, who was injuring your farm. The other Bill set up these county agricultural committees, and that will be useful work for them to do. I do not think we ought to call that control, but I think we ought to call it regulations in the mutual interests of the farmers of this country; as wide as the poles apart from compelling the farmer to cultivate his land in a particular manner.
I am sure it is a very serious thing for the Government to force on the House provisions of this character in face of the almost united opposition of the agricultural interests. We do not at all wish—we are most unwilling—to oppose the Government, and we certainly wish to do all we can in the highest interests of agriculture. It is only because we are thoroughly satisfied that this is against the interests of agriculture that we feel compelled to take a strong attitude against the Government proposals, and that attitude we shall be forced to maintain. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, said, this afternoon, in connection with another matter, that the Government were always open to the influence of the Members, yet here are the Government forcing on this House and on the country a measure affecting agriculture for all time, in the teeth of the opposition of their own supporters, who are the agriculturists of this House. That seems to me a most unfortunate position for us all to be faced with, and I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that when we placed our agricultural policy before our constituents at the last election there was no suggestion from the Prime Minister or from any other Member of the Government that proposals of this character were going to be made. We were returned, most of us, by our hundreds and our thousands in direct opposition to this policy, and had we placed this policy before our agricultural constituents, we should not have been in this House. As far as I know, this policy was placed before only one constituency. The Chairman of the National Farmers' Union stood for a division of Herefordshire, his own county, and he put forward this proposal of State control and fines on owners of land in order to bring about what they call security of tenure, but which I think will bring about insecurity of tenure, and what was the result? About 16,400 or 16,500 voters recorded their votes, and this gentleman was able to secure only about 2,900 votes, not one-fifth of the electors. Here we were all returned by our hundreds and our thousands in opposition to this policy, and the Government adopt the policy of this gentleman instead of the policy which we were returned to support. I think it is a most unfortunate state of affairs, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will
take everything into consideration, and that the Government will see their way to drop all these measures which the agricultural Members of this House think so highly detrimental to the real interests of agriculture.

Mr. G. EDWARDS: I rise to support the Government's Amendment because, like the hon. and gallant Member who has just, sat down, I represent an agricultural district, and this Amendment, I am sure; is entirely in the interests of a great and important industry. After the figures given by the Prime Minister, I fail to understand how anyone representing an agricultural constituency can oppose this Amendment. Alarming figures were given. We were told by the Prime Minister that £500,000,000,000—[A laugh.] An hon. Member laughs. If he had had the education I had, he would not laugh. I never went to a college; the turnip field was my college. We were told by the Prime Minister that £500,000,000 worth of food, which we should have produced ourselves, was imported into this country. Another startling figure he gave was that during the last forty years, as I can bear out—and my experience goes a little further than the Prime Minister; it goes back nearly 70 years—4,000,000 acres of land had gone out of cultivation, not saying anything of the millions of acres which are badly cultivated at the present moment. Remarks have been made about Government control. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that those who hold the land hold it in trust for the people, and if they do not fulfil that trust, then they are fighting against the community. What does this Amendment say? It does not dictate to a farmer, as I understand it, what, crops he has to produce. Nothing of the kind. What it does is to insist upon good agriculture. It does not say that the farmer shall grow wheat or oats or barley, but it does say that he shall cultivate his land according to rules of good husbandry.

Mr. PRETYMAN: On a point of Order. This Amendment we are discussing is that, in addition to good husbandry, which everybody agrees should be enforced, and tenantable repair, there should be further control. Everybody agrees to good husbandry, but not to control.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): That is hardly a point of Order.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford for his kindly respectful interruption, because I think I was confining my remarks to the Amendment. I repeat there is nothing in the Amendment dictating to the farmer what crops he shall grow.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I agree.

Mr. EDWARDS: Is the land being cultivated as it ought to be? You can get into a train at Liverpool Street, or any of the other railway centres in this City, and you may travel into the Midland counties or the Northern counties and there you will find thousands of acres not producing food for man or beast. Land that was once under the plough is now producing nothing but thorn bushes and coarse grass. Land must be suitable to grow corn. This Amendment says, "We give you security of tenure, and for the price of your produce, but in return we say, in the interests of the community, we will insist on this land being properly cultivated." The Amendment will prevent, as it is necessary to prevent, land going down to grass that is capable of being cultivated to-day. That is what the Amendment does, and it is, I am sure, in the interests of agriculture and the best interests of this country. Although it has been said that this Amendment is being supported by the Labour party, I hold the view that a great and an important industry like agriculture should be lifted above party politics, and, if anything can be done to improve this industry, then it ought to be done. I won my election on it. If I had not supported this, I should not be returned, because labourers and farmers consider that this Agriculture Bill is highly necessary for the industry, the tenant farmer and the labourer. If this Amendment is administered in the spirit in which it will be passed, you will hear no more of your unemployed or of your Class C, because men will be employed on the land. It will take a larger number than you have got in the country if the land be properly cultivated and brought to its proper use to produce food for the people. Therefore, I support this Amendment.

Brigadier-General WIGAN: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Grantham (Lieut.-Colonel Royds) who preceded me, it is with very great regret that I feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. The short time I have been in this House I have learned to realise how much the right hon. Gentleman has done for the agriculturists of this country, but this ploughing-up order is one which, I believe, is unfair in every way. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Edwards) who has just sat down could have stated that the Government were only insisting upon good husbandry. The Amendment distinctly states in the last line that they have the right to insist upon the land being ploughed up. We have been reminded that one of the reasons why the guarantee is given is to enable the farmer to pay the wages which he is forced to do by the National Wages Board. If the farmer had not the guarantee the tendency would be to put back as much land as possible to grass, so as to reduce his labour bill
I maintain that if the present guarantees are not sufficient to encourage agriculturists to produce food the object of these guarantees has failed. It strikes me also as unfair that, merely because you give a guarantee against loss, and not a guarantee of profit on two crops, that in return the Government are taking the right to dictate to the farmer how he shall run his own business. It has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman that there are adequate safeguards. The Solicitor-General told us, in the course of the Debate the other day, that there were so many safeguards that the Clause was almost inoperative. A further point that strikes me as unfair in this Amendment is that, whatever safeguards are given, mistakes will be made, and should the farmer be involved in loss from direct action of the Government he is to receive no compensation at all for that loss which he has been quite unable to avoid. That is grossly unfair. I should like to read a couple of letters which I have received in the last few days. One is from the Farmers' Union of Berkshire, a constituency of which I represent, and where practically all, or nearly, the farmers belong to the Farmers' Union, and the
second is from the chairman of the Essex Farmers' Union. The first letter states:
If the Amendments inserted and supported by the Government on the Report stage are insisted upon, my Committee feel that they have no option but to urge the Council of the National Farmers' Union to oppose the Bill entirely.
The second letter says:
Farmers all over England are absolutely opposed to compulsory ploughing up of grass land by order of the Agricultural Executive Committee. They agree that land should be thoroughly cultivated in the national interest to produce to its full capacity, but they know that more food will be produced by this means than by unduly increasing the arable area.
Everyone is in agreement that the Government should insist on good husbandry, but I do not think the Government have any right to coerce the farmer beyond insisting on good husbandry. The Prime Minister brought very vividly before us the lessons we learnt from the War. He pointed out that £500,000,000 worth of food was being imported that we could produce in this country, and that if we could produce a certain proportion of that on land in this country it would mean helping our credit with America, and consequently reducing the cost of living all round. Again, the Prime Minister pointed out that agriculture gave employment to very many more people. I think just before the Election he stated that the land in Great Britain, if properly cultivated, was capable of maintaining 400,000 more people. Again, to-night, he said that this was the healthiest of occupations. I do think that the agriculturists of the country should be grateful to the Government for at least endeavouring to announce a policy for agriculture, which bas been neglected for so many years. I do, however, believe that the way to achieve the result they are aiming at is by having the goodwill of the agriculturists, and not by attempting to coerce them. The proposal contained in the Amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary is, in my opinion, as I said before, unfair. It is disliked by the farmers, and as the Solicitor-General said, it is a Clause which will almost be inoperative. I therefore suggest that this Amendment should be either very greatly modified or altogether withdrawn.

Major STEEL: The Prime Minister, in his speech a short while ago, said that
the whole object of this Agriculture Bill was to try and increase the arable cultivation of this country. He pointed out the necessity and enumerated the great advantages of having a very much larger acreage of arable land than we used to have in the days before the War. I am quite sure everybody agrees with him about that, that it would be very advantageous to have far more arable land, and very advantageous to have a very much larger agricultural population. But I fear that this Amendment which has been proposed by the Government will have just the opposite effect. At the present time we are passing a permanent piece of legislation, and we have got to take a far-sighted view of this question. I am against the Government on this Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I feel that it will have the effect, instead of attracting capital into the industry and into land, of diverting capital; and, in the second place, I am opposed to it because I think it has been proved, and proved abundantly, that Government control of any description is about the most extravagant and wasteful form of control that it is possible to have.

Sir F. BANBURY: And inefficient at that!

Major STEEL: If we are agreed that we want to increase the arable cultivation of the country, one of the first essentials is to get capital, and to get increased capital. For arable cultivation you require a very large amount of capital. If the Minister is going to have the power, as he will have under this Amendment, of compelling the farmer to alter his method of cultivation; if he is going to control his type of cultivation, then, having taken away the individuality of the farmer, and hampered him by control, you will not have encouraged him to put his money into his farm, but rather encouraged him to divert his money and take it altogether out of farming. What we want to do now is to encourage the farmer to put more and more money into the industry, to put more and more money into his crops—if you propose to have a larger acreage of arable land. It is because I see that this Amendment, if it goes through, instead of attracting the farmer's capital into the land, and into his crops, will have the very opposite effect that I speak as I do.
The second reason why I am opposing this Amendment is that Government control is extravagant and wasteful. One hon. Member has referred to the very large number of officials now employed at the Board of Agriculture, and I think he said there were 2,000 more officials employed there now than there used to be in 1914. I really do not know what all these officials do. I quite realise that it was necessary to employ a large number temporarily to adjust all these various claims for compulsory ploughing up during the War, and I realise that it has been necessary to have a large extra staff for the settlement of all these claims, but I cannot conceive what the remainder of those 2,000 officials do. I feel that the public at large do not realise what Government control means, and I am perfectly certain that the man in the street does not realise how wasteful and in many cases inefficient it is.
I would like to give an example of a case of inefficient and wasteful agricultural control which happened to come to my notice a short time ago. I happen to be a member of the county council in the county in which my home is in Scotland, and at a meeting there a short time ago we had sent down from the Board of Agriculture in Edinburgh a gentleman in a black coat, who insisted upon coming down to lecture the council with the object of trying to get them to take steps to exterminate the rats in the county. The clerk to the county council wrote to the Board of Agriculture and said that we were not troubled with rats in our county, and he did not think there was any necessity for this official to be sent down, but the Board insisted, and down he came. He gave us a long lecture, and after lecturing for about a quarter of an hour, we asked him what he would recommend us to do. He recommended the appointment of a whole-time rat officer to see that the various farmers took steps to kill their rats.
9.0 P.M.
It was pointed out that this was a small county, and not one in which there was likely to be any great quantity of rats, because it was a pastoral and not a grain county. Everybody told him that we had no great quantity of rats, and that they did comparatively little damage, but notwithstanding he did his very best to insist upon our having a whole-time rat officer. There was a discussion after his lecture, and one member
of the council said he found that if he kept three or four cats they were quite sufficient to deal with the rats in his stackyard. Another member of the council described how he dealt with the rats, and eventually the whole discussion was brought to an end by an old Scotch farmer, a very astute member of the council, saying: "I would very much sooner have half-a-dozen good cats to kill my rats than any official sent down by the Board from Edinburgh," and everybody roared with laughter. Here was an officer of the Board of Agriculture in Edinburgh who was sent down to a county where there are really no rats. I suppose his salary and expenses were paid out of the taxpayers' money, and he did his best to insist that the council should employ a whole-time rat officer to deal with rats when there were very few in existence at all, and when such an officer was quite unnecessary. It was only because he had to deal with an economical and hard-headed lot of county councillors who refused to waste the ratepayers' money that we were saved this absurd expenditure. Government control is both wasteful and extravagant, and in some cases it is inefficient. For these reasons, and also because I feel that this proposal will have the effect of diverting capital from the land instead of attracting it. I shall support the Amendment.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The Prime Minister made an eloquent appeal to the House to support him in carrying these proposals. He told us that we had been dependent upon some £500,000,000 worth of foreign agricultural produce, and he informed us how many millions of acres of land had gone out of cultivation. Anyone who has had any practical knowledge of agriculture and country life is bound to ask is it any wonder that we have been so dependent upon foreign produce? We know how our British agriculture has been hopelessly sacrificed to what is called industrialism. This is not because we have had any neglect of supervision, but rather because the deliberate policy of this country in the past has been not to encourage agriculture but to encourage the great industrial enterprises in the country. We have seen how foreign produce has been carried on our railways at cheaper rates than our home produce. We have seen how bounty-fed agricultural produce has
come into this country to compete with our own produce. Under these circumstances is there any wonder that land has been driven out of cultivation. We have seen foreign produce sold here and palmed off in our own shops as home produce. In this way the home producer suffers grievous loss and a grievance is suffered by the community at large. There is no wonder that our agriculture has suffered in the past, and the illustrations brought forward by the Prime Minister I think are altogether outside this question at the present time.
The Parliamentary Secretary ha[...] told us that in his opinion the argument in favour of this Clause is that the Government must have a quid pro quo for the guarantee. I believe that guarantee is a hopeless sham and mistake and the industrial and urban districts of this country will be up in arms and quite rightly so because at the very time when the subsidy in the case of the cheap loaf is being taken off, a subsidy is being given to the farmers. The industrial community will not stand treatment of that kind. We are having supervision introduced in order to force land to be ploughed up. Therefore when we have the corollary of that guarantee proposal introduced in the shape of supervision and the power to enforce land to be ploughed up, I say the whole policy is wrong. If the farmers of this country get fair treatment they are able to manage their land as well as it can be managed. I have always considered, and I think this voices the opinion of the National Farmers' Union both of England and of Scotland, that security of tenure is invaluable for enabling the occupier to make the most of his land, and if we get that principle established in legislation, if we get security of tenure we shall find that increased production will follow. I very seldom, in fact I never vote against the Government, but on this occasion I am going to do so, because I am a practical agriculturist who wants to get the most out of the land and I think that this Clause will do a great deal of harm to the farmers.

Sir F. BLAKE: I do not want to give a silent vote on a matter which so vitally affects a large number of my constituents. At the same time I am only following many of my hon. Friends who have already spoken in favour of the Amendment. I was not present when the
Government was defeated in Committee upstairs, and I am bound to confess that at that time I thought a mistake had been made, and I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I thought the words which had been struck out, or some modification of them, would probably have to be reinserted in the Bill. That opinion was cheered by several Members of the Committee. Of course, one reason for thinking that was that the powers proposed to be conferred on the Minister at that time did seem to preserve the balance between the different parties engaged in the industry—the farmer and the consumer, and to give that qui pro quo which has been so constantly alluded to. But that was in July, and one has since had time to reconsider the matter and to discuss it with the leading agriculturalists in his own district. What have they told us? They are almost unanimous in declaring that the proposed powers of control when looked at from the point of view of their probable effect will do more harm than good, because any advantages of control will be nullified and overbalanced by the paralysing effect which the fear of its operation will produce in the minds of the farmer.
Above all, you want to create a sense of security. You cannot expect a farmer to do his best in a state of apprehension, doubt or suspicion. Farmers are the most suspicious men in the world. These powers are to be exercised by the new County Agricultural Committees. Upon these Committees will be found a very large proportion indeed of the members of the old War Committees—the old War County Agricultural Executive Committees. It is universally admitted that great mistakes were made all over the country by those Committees. A farmer is a man who remembers such things longer than most people. Consequently, the farmers of to-day are full of apprehension and fear of these new Agricultural Committees. Personally, I believe they are more soundly constituted than the old ones, and will work more carefully and more judiciously that it was possible for the old Committees to do during a period of war. Still, these Committees have to win the confidence of the agricultural community. There is plenty of work for them to do in order no win that confidence. If the agricultural community can be made to feel that
they will act with judicial minds, with fairness, with justice and with a clear apprehension of the requirement of agriculture, then the Committees will win their confidence.
I fear it is hopeless to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he should defer conferring these special powers of ordering land to be ploughed up until such times as the new committees have been able to establish themselves in the confidence of the agricultural community. Still that is the practical suggestion I rose to make. I am convinced that nothing would be lost by doing it, and that the gain would be lasting and valuable to the Ministry of Agriculture. I am afraid, however, after what has been said in this Debate, that one cannot anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman will give way to this appeal, and in that case I shall have to do what I have seldom done, and that is to vote against the Government. I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister with a good deal of apprehension. It will not do much to allay the fears of agriculturists, because, if it meant anything at all, it undoubtedly seemed to point to a policy of wholesale ploughing up in all parts of the country. I hope it did not mean that, but one cannot help feeling that it will do much to nullify the good effect of the speech which he made to the farmers, and in consequence of which, as we were led to believe, this Bill was introduced.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: As the representative of an important agricultural constituency, I wish to say a few words upon the Amendment now before the House, and to add my protest to those which have already been made. The Government are in a somewhat parlous position, for they have had but one supporter up to the present, and I was very sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman cheering his solitary supporter. It made me look back to the years gone by, when he used always to be associated with other agricultural Members in endeavouring to do his best in what we believe to be the best interests of the agricultural community. I regret that I am bound to oppose him on this Amendment. I say to the Government that it is the very greatest pity that they should force on this Amendment, by which, in my opinion, they are offending the whole agricultural community throughout this country. I
listened with the greatest interest to the eloquent appeal which the Prime Minister made to us, but I regret that I feel bound to vote against the Government, and I believe that every other representative of an agricultural constituency on these Benches will vote in the same way this evening.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: You will lose your coupon.

Captain WILSON: I do not think the Government have realised how strong are the feelings of agriculturists throughout the country with regard to the imposition of this Government control, and I believe that every hon. Member who represents an agricultural constituency will go into the Lobby against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There may be one or two on the Labour Benches, but not very many. I think that the only supporters the Government will have among agriculturists will be two or three agricultural Members of the Labour party.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Farmers—not landowners.

Captain WILSON: At the last election the one cry that faced me throughout the division which I represent was, "For goodness sake get rid of Government control," and the same cry goes up as urgently now as it did then. When this Bill was first introduced it found a considerable number of supporters amongst the farming community in my constituency. They had not realised what it meant. But since the Debates upon it in this House, and since they have gradually come to realise what it means, opinion in my constituency has been changing rapidly. Only a day or two ago I had a letter from a prominent farmer, in which he says:
I want to inform you what the position is in the constituency. There seems to be now a prevailing opinion amongst your farmer constituents that the Bill ought not to pass, that it will not stimulate production; but, on the contrary, it will aggravate the present grave condition, which is due in large measure to recent legislation.
That opinion is, I believe, gradually growing throughout England with regard to this measure. It is now realised that the millstone of Government control is to be hung round the neck of the agricultural community, and therefore the feeling has so changed that farmers are now strongly opposed to this Bill, of
which, at the beginning, they were moderate supporters. The Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary desires to re-insert is one which was taken out by the Committee, and I do not think that the Government, in pressing this Amendment, are treating their Committee upstairs quite, fairly. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was present earlier this afternoon, when the Leader of the House made an earnest appeal to us all in connection with the Financial Resolution for the Ministry of Health Bill. He said, in effect, that the Government would do nothing to upset the deliberate decision of the Committee upstairs, except—he did make an exception—except on a really vital point. Do the Government consider that Government control of agriculture is the really vital point of their Bill? If so, the sooner we know it the better. I am sure that the agricultural community do not consider that that ought to be the vital principle of this important measure. We all of us agree with the extract which the Prime Minister read from Lord Selborne's Report, but I cannot make out that there is anything in that Report which suggested Government control.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: It did.

Captain WILSON: I am sure of this, that even if Government control were recommended in that report, Lord Selborne, after his war experience of Government control in various industries, would no longer recommend Government control of agriculture. The Prime Minister made the point that in years gone by land had gone so rapidly out of cultivation. Of course it did at one period, but that was due to the fall in the prices of foodstuffs. The only way in which that could have been met then was by protection or by guaranteed prices, to which this House at that time would never have consented. If you do give the farmers of this country prices that ensure them a reasonable profit, there is not the slightest doubt that, without any Government interference, they will provide food to the utmost capacity of their land. The Prime Minister said that it is essential that more permanent pasture shall be broken up. I should like to take the Prime Minister round a few fields in my constituency and show him the condition of the land there which was broken up under compulsory ploughing-up Orders during the War. There were
magnificent pastures, supporting sheep and cattle in large numbers, which are now, to all intents and purposes, producing nothing at all, and largely because farmers cannot employ sufficient labour to work this land, which requires a terrible amount of working. The condition of the permanent pasture, broken up three years ago, is now deplorable, and it will produce very little towards satisfying the wants of the people of this country. In my opinion, and in that of many of my friends on these Benches, the interference of the Government in agriculture will ruin that industry. Believing that as strongly as I do, I shall most certainly oppose the Amendment of my right hon. Friend in the interests of all classes engaged in agriculture.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Although I represent a constituency which is mainly agricultural, I have never before had the temerity to address the House on an agricultural question, because I cannot claim to be in any sense an agricultural expert. The position which is before the House this evening in connection with agriculture is, however, so serious that I think it should be tested, not only by the views of agricultural experts, but by the views of what I hope I can claim to be, a common sense person with a business training. Tested from that point of view, I find the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, who is asking us to-night to reverse the decisions of the Committee upstairs, to be such that I cannot possibly support them, believing as I do that if this House adopts them they will be wholly detrimental to the interests of the agricultural industry. In the constituency which I represent I have been repeatedly asked, as I have no doubt most hon. Members from agricultural constituencies have been asked, "What is this Government going to do for agriculture?" The answer I am not prepared to take back to them, and which I am certainly not prepared to say that I supported, is, "What this Government propose to do for agriculture is to put it in chains, and to prevent farmers from managing their own business." If I told my farmer friends that, I am sure they would say, "What are you and your friends about in the House to permit such things?"
I was very much impressed, like my hon. Friend who has just sat down, by the remarks of the Leader of the House
this afternoon as to the attitude of the Government toward the work of committees upstairs. It was reminiscent of the time when, at the beginning of this Parliament, the Leader of the House gently talked us in the direction of agreement to these committees upstairs whose conclusions, he assured us, would never be upset—I really do not think I am exaggerating—in any matter in which they had taken important decisions after proper consideration. That was the impression he left on our minds, and which he endeavoured to leave on our minds this afternoon. Once bitten, twice shy, however, and one cannot trust that this sort of general assurance can be relied upon when we really get close down to business. Of all the Clauses in this Bill this particular one, from the point of view of the agricultural industry, is far and away the most important. It is important because we have not the slightest idea of where it will lead to. The results of a Clause like this are very often far more important from the moral point of view than from any real effect which they produce. One never knows in business to what a widespread feeling of insecurity may lead. Nothing checks business more than uncertainty, and that is the precise element which this proposal, if adopted, will introduce into the agricultural industry. Feeling that, I am not particularly reassured by the statements made from the Treasury Bench to the effect that this Clause really does not matter, and that nothing is really going to be done under it. That being so, I rather share the suspicions expressed by some of my hon. Friends, who said to the Government, "If that is the case, why on earth do you want to go on with it?" Is it for camouflage—to use that much abused expression—or what is the reason? Do you want to claim credit for something you do not intend to do, or do you really mean to take these powers and act upon them? I do not know which would be a wise line of conduct for the Government to pursue. It would be equally bad to ask for the Clause and act upon it, or to ask for the Clause in order to claim credit for what they are not going to do, and, at the same time, to frighten the industry and to bring it practically to the verge of ruin, as they may easily do.
With regard to the objects of the Government in pressing forward this line
of policy, it has always seemed to me that there is great confusion of thought on this subject. Most people in this country are really not clear what they do want in regard to an agricultural policy. What do we want? Is the general desire in this country to revert to the position which existed before the War, that is, to have the cheapest possible food in this country regardless of all other considerations? If it is not, do they want to have cheap food, combined with a certain measure of what I may call War insurance? In other words, do they wish to increase the production of food in this country beyond that degree of production which would be brought about by natural economic causes? If they do want the second of these alternatives, then they have to be prepared to pay for it in some form or another. That is the only way in which they can get it. They have to pay, and they have to make up their minds how and to what extent they are prepared to pay. That is a very different thing from thinking that they can get it by some measure of compulsion without being prepared to pay the price. This Bill is really not going to help the farmer to make his farming pay. That being the case, it can only operate either by not increasing the extent of the arable land of the country, or, if it does succeed in increasing it, it must make the products from that arable land which is only cultivated under compulsion extraordinarily expensive. If you are going to make the products extraordinarily expensive, that will mean that the farmer producing them cannot go on indefinitely with this unpayable business. Within a few years he will have to drop it, and so the last state will be worse than the first. If you are going to increase artificially the agricultural production of this country beyond the limits to which it will be brought by the uncontrolled discretion of the men who are engaged in the industry, you will, in one form or another, have to devise some system of subsidy or bonus. I do not believe you can do it by tariffs, because they operate in a different and probably more mischievous way, but if you are going to give some inducement to farmers to do what it will not pay them to do unless you do something for them, you have got to do it by some form of bonus or subsidy. The Bill is not proposing to proceed in that way, and therefore I
cannot believe it will succeed in its main object.
The Prime Minister has laid stress on the desirability of getting people back to the land. I do not feel at all certain that there are these large numbers of people who can be sent back to the land, or that when they get back to the land, if they have ever been there before, they will be efficient for the purpose for which they are required. It is a very small number of people comparatively who are ready and willing to go back to the land, even if they were paid considerably higher wages—and from the agricultural point of view the wages are pretty high now—than they can get to-day. Is the next step going to be that we are going to compel farmers to cultivate, what they do not want to cultivate, at a loss, and that we are also going to compel people to go back to the land to supply the labour which will be needed for this uneconomic process? That is the; logical next step, but I do not see a Minister of Agriculture proposing that, so I think we can rule it out. There will not be any inducement that the industry can offer in the form of higher wages to labourers to come back to the land, or for those who have not been on the land before to take to it, and therefore I do not see that the second part of the Prime Minister's desire can possibly be helped by this Bill. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and his Department have a general benevolent desire to help the industry, but I am not at all sure that they have looked clearly, and have understood where they are going, and I think we should like them to understand that fussy interference with the individual affairs of farmers throughout the country is not in the least likely to achieve the object we all have at heart. For these reasons I am afraid I must join in the chorus of Members who have voiced the same ideas and expressed the same decided opinion, and I have no alternative but to vote against the Government if they press this to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: We have had to-night probably one of the most interesting declarations which has ever been made in regard to agriculture. I mean the declaration by the Prime Minister in regard to the future of that industry, showing that he and his Government were prepared to do any-
thing they could to support it. The position we have got to at this moment is that the Prime Minister and the Government have inquired most carefully into the diseases which are affecting the industry of agriculture, and, having diagnosed the disease, they put forward a remedy. The Prime Minister truly said he and the Government are the first who have ever really taken up the subject, but unfortunately they are not the first people who, having taken up a subject and having diagnosed it, have produced the wrong remedy. I do not think my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) has even now any idea of the feeling amongst the agricultural community against his proposals. I represent practically entirely an agricultural constituency, and in whatever portion of the constituency I go I find the farmers have got it in their minds that, so far as the future produce of the country is concerned, there is nothing in the Bill which is going to do anything at all for the benefit of the country. Every farmer is willing and anxious to do his best, but he is not going to do it under coercion. That is a point which must be realised by the House and by my right hon. Friend. He may get a great deal done by persuasion, but he will get nothing done by coercion. The farmer looks at it rather from this point of view: The Government says, "We are offering you some guarantees. In return for that we demand that you shall submit yourselves to a certain amount of control." But, being a shrewd-headed man the farmer says, "When are these guarantees going to take place?" He sees no sign of them at present. He sees nothing actually in sight. Everything is in the future in regard to the guarantees. He is told at this moment that he has to submit to this form of control. It is harly a proposition that appeals to an ordinary man, and certainly it does not appeal to the farmer in Yorkshire.
The Prime Minister referred to the Selborne Report. In regard to the method of securing increased production, the Selborne Report says:
The Government has no fairy touch which will enable it to produce instantaneous results. It is worked through and by means of the men who are now holding and cultivating the land.
As I understand it, the position now in regard to the people who are cultivating the land, is that they will not have these
cultivation orders at any price, and the men who are going to have to work the cultivation orders have also unanimously expressed their views against it. So that the right hon. Gentleman has practically the whole of the agricultural community and the people who are intended to carry out the Bill all up against him, and under these circumstances it seems absurd to expect that the object of tin; Bill is going to be attained and that there is going to be any increased production. But it goes even further. The agricultural committees are in the position now of having an enormous amount of work to do—probably more than they can successfully accomplish. They are now asked to add this to their burden, and it can only mean that we are going to have another horde of officials put upon these agricultural committees. It is totally impossible in these large agricultural districts for the staff, as it is at present, of the agricultural committees in any way to go into the matter, and see whether land is being ploughed up which ought to be ploughed up, and whether land is left uncultivated, and so on. It must add to officialdom, and it must increase expense. I think, like many others who have the interest of agriculture at heart, that every one of us is prepared to submit to a certain amount of control. Every one of us is prepared to submit to any form of control in the shape of good husbandry. We wish in no way and in no instance to protect the bad farmer. We are all prepared to do everything we possibly can, and we realise the extreme necessity of getting increased production, but I feel most earnestly that the way the Government have set out to increase production is the wrong way, and if they persist in it the result will not be increased production but a very much decreased output and decreased cultivation.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I really ought not to intervene in the Debate, as in my constituency I do not think I have a single farmer, and therefore there is no farming opinion to express itself about the Bill. But I will guarantee that any men you meet in my constituency is against Government control. We have really had enough of Government control. We have had it in the iron trade, we have had it in shipping, and we have had it
in the coal trade. It very nearly ruined shipping, it ruined the coal trade—it has turned a profitable industry into one that cannot pay its way—and now the Government is coming down with a proposal to control the largest industry of the country. If they carry out the policy of which this Bill is the beginning, they will make that industry as moribund as the coal industry. Those of us who were on the Committee upstairs have just cause for complaint against the Government. Very serious consideration was given on this point in Committee and the Government were defeated, and now on Report they ask the House to reverse the work of the Committee. I am somewhat surprised that hon. Friends of mine who sit in the Labour interest are in favour of this Government control. Government control by whom? It is not democratic control; it is control by selected committees. The agricultural war committees are bodies selected by the County Councils and the Ministry of Agriculture, and the electorate of the country have no control whatever over these committees. If this is to be a permanent part of the policy of agriculture, then the electors ought to have direct control over the agricultural war committees.
The policy of Governments, not only this Government but other Governments of modern times, has been to filch from the electors control over local councils. The electors have lost control over their education authorities. The school board elections are done away with. In the old days every three years we had a right to express our opinion of the School Board very forcibly, and many people were turned out of office and others elected in their place because they did not satisfy the electors. Very recently the same proposal was made in regard to the boards of guardians. The boards of guardians were to be selected committees of the Local Government Board, and if that had been so the electors would have lost control over the administration of the Poor Law within their area. Now they are going to lose control over their agricultural committees. That is the most undemocratic proposal ever brought forward. I do not think that this control of agriculture is necessary. We depend to a very large extent on the importation of foreign food, and we vote very large sums for the Navy to enable us to bring
food from abroad. To-day we have no Navy competing with us in the world. We are the strongest naval power on the face of the earth, and I do not see very much cause for alarm as to the position in regard to the importation of foreign food.
There is another point in respect to the policy of food control. There are many districts where large farms are split up into very small holdings, and those are nearly entirely grass. If the Ministry of Agriculture is going to insist on ploughing up a few fields here and a few fields there on these small holdings it follows that the Government must provide the means of ploughing. They must keep the implements; they must keep ploughs; they must be able to say to the farmer, "If you cannot plough this land we will undertake to plough it for you," as they did in War time, and that would mean a very heavy cost to the community. I do not think it is necessary. Since the Committee met I have received information with respect to the district represented by my hon. Friend who spoke last. The Board of Agriculture ordered large areas of grass land to be ploughed up in a district which is not suitable for growing corn. The weather up there is very uncertain and in probably only one year out of ten is it possible to harvest grain after the middle of September. I have had an opportunity of consulting Members of that Agricultural War Committee, and I find that they objected to the ploughing up orders, but the Committee were over-ridden by the Board of Agriculture who sent a man down and practically overrode the considered decision of the Agricultural War Committee. Considering the influence of Government control over every industry that it has touched, and that the dead hand of Government control has had a deleterious effect on all industries that it has attempted to control, I shall certainly vote against the Government to-night although, unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I have been in the habit of voting against the Government.

Sir R. WINFREY: I had hoped that after the very able speech of the Prime Minister it would not have been necessary to have had many more speeches in support of this Amendment; but as one of those who was slightly responsible for the Corn Production Act I am glad to give the House my reasons for supporting the Government on this occasion. The
Corn Production Act was a War-time measure, which was to cease operation in 1922. In the Act, however, there was a Clause setting up an Agricultural Wages Board, and I do not see how the Government can continue the Agricultural Wages Board unless they continue the rest of their policy. In these circumstances the Government are wholly justified in bringing in this Bill, which continues the policy of the Corn Production Act. In the last Debate the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said the Corn Production Act had not been of any service to the country. He said:
No good has resulted from the interference of the War Agricultural Committees.

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear!

Sir R. WINFREY: There are eloquent figures to prove that that is not the case. In 1914, the year of the War, the acreage of wheat in this country was 1,904,000, and the acreage, of oats 3,877,000, a total of 5,781,000 acres. The Corn Production Act was passed in 1917. The War Agricultural Committees got to work all over the country, and although it is possible they did make a few mistakes, you do not hear of the good things they did.

Sir F. BANBURY: There were not any.

Sir R. WINFREY: I have watched carefully the members of the War Agricultural Committees. They did their duty very well. In nine cases out of ten their orders were wise orders which resulted in more food production. After the War Agricultural Committees had been in operation for a year the wheat area increased to 2,793,000 acres and the oats to 5,603,000, a total for the two crops of 8,396,000 acres as against 5,750,000 acres.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: Due to the patriotism of the farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why did they not do so before?"]

Sir R. WINFREY: I have never suggested that the farmers were not patriotic, but I suggest that it was the War Agricultural Committees going through the parishes, field by field, ordering the farmers to do certain ploughing up, which produced that increase. In addition, there was an increase of many thousands of acres in the potato crops. The result was that we were the only belligerent country which produced more
food in 1918 than in pre-War days. Unless you are going to allow the Corn Production Act to lapse in 1922, and with it the Agricultural Wages Board, you have got to continue this policy, and if you continue this policy you have got to insist upon continuing control, because you are giving a greater subsidy now than you did under the Corn Production Act. Under that Act the figures are out of date.

Sir F. BANBURY: Has the hon. Member read the statement in the "Times" to-day by Sir Tristran Eve, that Sir Daniel Hall, then Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, admitted when giving evidence before the Royal Commission, over which Sir William Peat presided, that no extra food had been produced as a result of the Corn Production Act?

10.0 P.M.

Sir R. WINFREY: I read that this morning and dispute it altogether. Taking the standard year, 1919, it is estimated that the cost of production of an acre of wheat was 68s. per quarter. I think that that was high. I gave that evidence before the Royal Commission. I was the only witness who gave figures. The figure for oats was 48s. Then these Commissioners are to ascertain each year whether the cost of production has increased or decreased over and above what it was in 1919. There is no doubt that it has increased last year and in the coming year, owing to the increased wages, it will be greater than in 1919. If the market price of wheat is lower than the fixed price, whatever the Commission may fix in their Order, the Government are to pay the difference. That is the subsidy. Taking it at 1s. per quarter of wheat, the subsidy would amount to £1,750,000, but we will assume, and rightly assume, that there will be an increased production. If so, that 1s. difference may amount to more than £2,000,000 this year. It is only a simple sum in arithmetic. If the difference in price is 5s., there will be £10,000,000, or a little more. That is a very substantial safeguard for the farmers of this country, and I am very glad to see that they have accepted it. Hon. Members during this Debate have attempted, I suppose, to voice the opinion of farmers in their constituencies. Farmers in my constituency, I believe, will welcome the
Bill. I have never heard anything to the contrary. I have received from the Farmers' Union their October circular. The president, in a letter dated 30th October, says:
We further consider that the guarantee, together with the security of tenure provided by part 2, constitute a reasonable basis for acceptance of the measure of control proposed by the Government.
That is pretty strong. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Sleaford in the last Debate. He actually said we had no slack farmers. I do not know where he puts his eyes when he travels about his constituency. I find a great many farmers still up and down the country who are growing too many thistles and spoiling other people's land. The right hon. Member for the City of London must see many farmers growing more thistles than are necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see any on my grass land.

Sir R. WINFREY: That is good farming. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is a good farmer, but there are a great many slack farmers. I do not think that these agricultural committees will use their power very greatly to order more grass land to be ploughed up, but they will insist on that land which has been already ploughed up being cultivated properly. That will be their chief work. The Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) said that a number of agricultural committees met in London here and said they would not put Ploughing-up Orders into operation. I have made inquiry and find that it was a meeting of the chairmen of the old War Agricultural Committees who met together to have a social dinner before they dispersed, and they did express the view that they would rather not carry out any further Orders with regard to ploughing up. That is all that amounts to. The new Agricultural Committees that are set up have not expressed any opinion whatever, and I believe they are so constituted that they will honestly carry out their work. I feel that as the Government has decided to continue the policy of the Corn Production Act those of us who were responsible for it ought to lend all the support we can in passing this measure.

Captain FITZROY: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House spoke rather disparagingly of the decision
which has been come to by the chairmen of the old agricultural executive committees. I must say that I should have thought that no body of men was more entitled to be listened to on ploughing-up Orders than were the chairmen of the old agricultural executive committees. The hon. Gentleman accused Members who have previously taken part in this Debate of speaking disparagingly of the agricultural committees. I should be the last to speak in that way of any agricultural committee. The hon. Gentleman tried to point out that the effect of ploughing-up Orders which have been in force during the War had been greatly to increase the acreage under wheat cultivation. There is nothing more misleading than to quote figures of the increased acreage by ploughing-up Orders. There is nothing easier than to make Orders for ploughing-up, but it is quite a different matter to get the greater yield from the land which is to be ploughed up. A great deal of the mistake which was made during the War was making ploughing-up Orders in order to increase the acreage under arable instead of ensuring that the acreage that was already under arable was made to produce the maximum. I rise to welcome the intervention in the Debate of the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Winfrey). Agricultural representatives in this House welcome the intervention in agricultural Debates anything that will improve agriculture and the rural conditions in this country. They welcome especially those in industrial areas who interested themselves in rural pursuits and in the agricultural industry, and for that reason I wish many more Members would follow the example of the hon. Gentleman and intervene in agricultural discussions. Earlier this evening the Prime Minister came and intervened in this Debate. I am quite sure that all of us, at any rate those who represent agricultural constituencies, welcome his intervention. He carried us back to what he described as the reasons for the Government having undertaken to have an agricultural policy and to deal with the agricultural question. The reasons of it were, of course, the experience that we learned during the War and the decision of the Government—a very wise decision—was that under no circumstances, if they could help it, should we be brought to the critical con-
dition we were then in as to the food supplies of this country.
I can assure the Prime Minister that those of us who have been engaged in agriculture for a considerable number of years and taken an interest in agricultural questions are just aware of the need for more food production in this country, and are just as much concerned with the future with regard to this question as is the Government. But one thing which gives us satisfaction is that the Prime Minister, I am convinced, is heart and soul in his desire to do the best he can for the rural conditions of this country, especially for the agricultural interests. I had the honour, after the Prime Minister had made his speech at the Caxton Hall when he introduced his policy, or, at any rate, when he told us he was going to introduce it, of making a short speech in moving a vote of thanks to the Prime Minister, and I said then that we had for the first time for a generation a Prime Minister who really took an interest in agriculture and rural questions. I endorse every word that I said then, and I am convinced that he has truly at heart the agricultural industry. But on this occasion, and in order to carry out his desires, he has been ill-advised. He appears to have sought advice from wrong quarters, and had he been better advised on this question I feel quite certain he would not have proposed this measure of coercion for the first time in the agricultural industry. The Prime Minister read us statistics of comparative production of other countries, notably Germany and Denmark, with regard to what they produce per acre in those countries as compared with the United Kingdom. In the same breath he told us that he deplores that successive Governments in this country had neglected the agricultural industry. It is absolutely because countries like Germany and Denmark, instead of neglecting their agricultural industry for generations past, have recognised the fact that the agricultural industry is the most important in those countries, and that they have given attention to that fact and have done everything to promote the industry in those countries. Furthermore, I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that Germany, at any rate, is highly protected as far as its agricutural industry is concerned, and I venture to say that had this country devoted as much atention in
fostering agriculture as have Germany and Denmark we should have produced as much, if not more, per acre in this country than those countries have been able to show.
Even at this late hour in our discussion we ought to keep the key object of this Bill constantly before us and not to lose sight of it, and that is that this Bill has for its object the producing of more food in this country. The fault I find with this particular proposal which we are discussing now is that the Government is continuing the ploughing-up Orders or giving agricultural committees to make ploughing-up Orders. I do not believe that these ploughing-up Orders will have the effect of producing more food in this country, and that is the whole reason of our opposition to that particular proposal. The Prime Minister enumerated various proposals made in this Bill with regard to guaranteed prices, measures of compensation, and so on. If those things in themselves will not produce more food in this country it is absolutely certain that the coercive measures of this proposal will not have the desired effect. Agriculturists as such do not object to control. Many hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is unreasonable on the part of agriculturists to accept the guarantee and to object to control. Their contention is that if we accept something we must put up with Government control. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is not control as control that I object to the least in the world. What I do object to is that control which is proposed by the Government will not have the effect which we all desire, which is to increase the food production in this country. I do not want to make too much of our experience during the War. Naturally things were done in a hurry, and things occurred which if it were in peace time would probably not have occurred. The fact is that you do not get the best results from these coercive measures. I know quite well that a great deal of the unsatisfactory results obtained in the War were not due to wrongful orders, but very largely owing to the fact that the farmer was compelled to do something that he did not want to do, or to do something in a way different from the way in which he thought it ought to be done. When he was told that one particular field was the particular field to be ploughed he probably at once
said, "That is not the field; it should be another field," and he did not put his heart into the work of ploughing as he did not think the field was the one which ought to be ploughed. Hon. Members may say that is rather ridiculous, but it is human nature.
I am quite convinced that if these compulsory powers are continued in peace in the same way as in time of war the results will be even more disastrous, because at that time the farmers realised that the food supply was in jeopardy, and they had to do the best they could. Now they know that the situation is not so critical, and if they are compelled to do certain things which they feel they ought not to be compelled to do they will not put their best efforts into the work, and though you may get a larger acreage you will not get a larger food supply. The Prime Minister, and quite rightly, laid great stress on the need for greater production. The Government propose now to re-introduce into the Bill the compulsory ploughing-up orders which were taken out of it in Committee, because, they say, they must insist on having a larger acreage of arable land, yet at the very time, last spring, when they might have got a larger acreage under arable land by giving the farmers free markets, they refused to do so. I cannot understand the inconsistency of the two things. If the Government were absolutely sincere that they wanted increased arable cultivation, and certainly if they wanted the existing arable cultivation kept arable, they had the means in their hands last spring; instead of that, they kept on the control prices, and I tell the hon. Gentlemen opposite, for what it is worth, that even with a price of 90s. and 95s., under the existing cost of production, wages, and other prices which go to make up the cost of production in a quarter of wheat, with wheat at 90s. a quarter, I guarantee that with the bad summer we have had and the small yield we have had there is very little wheat that has been grown this harvest which has paid the farmer to grow it, and yet we are told that this guarantee, which is only supposed to keep the farmer from bankruptcy, is going to induce farmers to grow more corn. I say without fear of contradiction that the majority of wheat grown this year has been grown at a loss.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that the wheat guarantee is based on the amount of yield?

Captain FITZROY: It is paid on the average of 4 quarters to the acre. An hon. Member below me says that is a very low yield, but taking the land all over the country, he will find that in a year like this the average yield is about 3½ quarters. Consequently, in a year like this, when wheat does not pay to grow at 90s., is it likely that any farmer is going to be induced to plough up fresh land owing to the guaranteed prices? I say that the absurdity of the Government insisting upon this when they refused the only chance they had of keeping the arable land in cultivation cannot be denied. I would urge upon the Government to reconsider their decision with regard to this particular Amendment. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not from any wish to harass the Government that those of us who represent agricultural constituencies in this House have come to the conclusion that this ploughing up Amendment is really the crux of the whole of this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman insists on forcing upon us what we know to be an inherently wrong principle, we would sooner not have the Bill at all, and shall take the responsibility of voting against it on Third Reading. I ask him at this late hour if he cannot reconsider this, because those of us who, like myself, wish an agricultural policy to be brought in by the Government, and allow the agricultural industry to know exactly where it stands, wish to support the Government in bringing in a wise agricultural Bill. I say once more, if this particular Clause is incorporated in this measure, we, as agriculturists, would sooner be without the Bill at all.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): We have had a long Debate on this Amendment, and we had a long Debate on a previous Amendment moved the other night by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), raising very much the same point. He raised the point that there should be no control whatsoever. This is a rather more limited point, but the subject matter is the same, and I venture to hope that, after the long Debate we have had, the House will
shortly be willing to come to a decision. Before it does so, there are one or two points I wish to mention in reply to some of the speeches that have been made. I have been accused of asking the House to take a very strong course in reversing the decision of the Committee. I think it is only fair to myself to say that I made it perfectly clear when the Government was defeated in Committee, that the matter could not rest where it was, and that, in return for the very substantial guaranteed prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Captain S. WILSON: Not payable prices.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would really ask my hon. Friends to give me a hearing. I have listened to a great many speeches against the Government, and I have not interrupted anybody. I say, in return for the very substantial guaranteed prices—very substantial, anyhow, from the point of view of the taxpayer—it is only reasonable that the Government should claim a certain right of control over farmers. There is a further point. I am not asking the House to put back what was originally in the Bill. What I am asking the House to do is to enact something much more limited in scope than what was in the Bill. In the original Bill powers were asked for any improvement in cultivation, and, if we deemed it necessary, any change in cultivation. What I am asking now is a far more limited matter. In regard to improvement, it is limited to an improvement in the existing method of cultivation. In regard to a change, it is limited to the maintenance of a certain amount of arable land, where deemed necessary, with this proviso: "So, however, as not to interfere with the discretion of the occupier as to the crops to be grown." I remember in Committee the matter that was made a great deal of was the idea that officials were coming down from Whitehall and were going to dictate to the farmer who knew his job what he was to grow this year and that year. We have met that point entirely, and I appeal to the House, judging the matter fairly, though we may be to some extent reversing the decision of the Committee, we are asking for a far more limited proposal, and it is not true to say in any sense it is an absolute reversal of what the Committee did.
I need hardly say that I regret, and regret profoundly, that so many of my hon. Friends, with whom I have worked,
and been glad to work, in the interests of agriculture, have taken the line they have on this particular Amendment. In our objects, I believe, we are absolutely at one. We want to make more of agriculture. We want to support our rural population. We want to see our country grow, in the way of food, as much as it possibly can. We believe a great deal more can be done. We only differ as to method. And I think, when we come to methods, that perhaps there is not so great a difference between us. My hon. Friends seem to think that even the very limited powers of compulsion which we propose in this Bill will have the opposite effect to that which the Government and all of us desire. In support of that contention, it is actually suggested that the experience of the War, when a few mistakes were bound to be made, and when we were acting in a hurry, showed, though there was a greater acreage, the actual production of food was not increased by these Ploughing-up Orders. That view is entirely incorrect. My right hon. Friend opposite is perfectly true in what he said, that there was a large increase in the production of both wheat and oats in this country. I will give the House the figures. Between the years 1916, which was before the ploughing-up policy was commenced, and 1918 the quarters of wheat grown in this country increased from 7,500,000 quarters to 11,500,000 quarters.

Sir B. STANIER: How is that estimated?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: How is it estimated? These are the actual figures! Then with respect to oats the increase was from 21,000,000 quarters to 31,000,000 quarters. In view of these figures the statement that has been made that the ploughing-up policy was a mistake is entirely refuted.

Captain S. WILSON: What is the condition of the land to-day, three years afterwards?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: What is the condition of the land to-day? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course my hon. Friends will realise that there has since been a decrease in the production of corn. During the War the farmers were asked to grow corn in the greatest possible quantity and they have reverted to the ordinary rotation and temporarily there is
bound to be a certain diminution. But I believe that that tendency can be checked. What I put to the House is this: that if we give substantial guarantees we ought to have at all events the right to insist upon that amount of control which we ask for in this Amendment. I desire to say one or two things with regard to the attitude of hon. Members in this Debate. Right throughout this Debate it has been assumed that we are taking to ourselves the most drastic powers of control; that we are going to ruin the farmers who are risking their own capital and not the capital of the Government; that we are going to ruin them by issuing ploughing-my orders in the case of land which is not suitable for ploughing; that there is to be, no regard for the national interest or the individual interest of the farmer. The exact opposite is the truth. There are the greatest safeguards before any single ploughing-up order can be effective, and the owner, or occupier, or anybody else interested can appeal to the arbitrator. It has got to be proved first of all that the proposed change of cultivation is in the national interest and that it would not injuriously affect the interests of any person interested in the soil. We have heard nothing about that proposal in the Debate, and it has been passed over entirely. In view of that, how can anybody really say that we are going to ruin the farmer, and that we are undertaking an uneconomic system of control by ordering the ploughing up of land which is said to be unsuitable for the plough or that there is to be any real hardship whatever inflicted by the terms of this Clause? I ask the House not to judge this Clause by the cry of "Down with Government control," but judge it by the real terms of the Clause. What we want is a policy which would preserve to this country a sufficient amount of arable land instead of contending that it is good husbandry for a man to keep under grass splendid land which could produce much more food under the plough. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Grantham (Lieut.-Colonel Royds), whose opinions always carry weight with me, where we got this policy from, and the hon. and gallant Member put that question very strongly after the Prime Minister's speech. I will tell him. It comes first of all from the Selborne Report, which says:
To increase production on the scale which we believe to be necessary it will be
essential to increase largely the area of land devoted to arable cultivation.'

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Selborne Report recommended that compulsory powers should be exercised, or whether all those suggestions were to be voluntary?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It means that the farmer ought to be made to understand that there must be more arable land, and if the farmers decline to give that result, unless we insist upon it, how on earth can the recommendation of the Selborne Report be carried out? Secondly, our policy comes from the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which sat in 1919, and here is an extract from their Report:
We think it desirable that the State should possess the power of ensuring that the objects for which guarantees are given will be attained. We recommend, therefore, that coupled with a system of guarantees should go definite powers of oversight and control of farming operations. We consider that both the owner and occupier of the land owe a duty to the State of seeing that the holding is cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, and that no land capable of cultivation should be allowed to lie uncultivated. We would not recommend that the system should be ordered and regulated except in times of national emergency, but we are of opinion that the Board of Agriculture and the Committee, having regard to all the circumstances relating to a particular holding, should have the power to determine which portion should be devoted to arable farming.
Those are precisely the terms of the Amendment which is before the House at the present moment.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will my right hon. Friend read the recommendations of the Minority Report?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They are rather a lot.

Sir R. THOMAS: There was only a majority of one for the Majority Report.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but a majority is a majority. We look, not only at the size of the majority, but also at its constitution. The majority was comprised of the farmers on the Royal Commission.

Sir R. THOMAS: There was only one farmer from Wales, and he was in the minority.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am afraid that on this occasion that farmer from Wales
was on the wrong side. I will go further, and give another source from which the proposal comes. It is the Agricultural Committee of this House. The very first time I spoke in this House after my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary was on the Address last year, on an Amendment by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) regretting that there was no announcement in the Speech of any real provision for the needs of the agricultural industry and population. Answering my hon. Friend, I said he was asking for an extension of the Corn Production Act and an Amendment in respect of the figures of the guarantee. My hon. Friend replied that that was what he was asking for. But that would have meant an extension of far greater powers than are contained in this particular Clause. If my hon. and gallant Friend is still in doubt as to where it came from, I will tell him another source: it came from his election address. Here is an extract from the election address of Lieut.-Colonel Royds:—
This constituency is largely agricultural. I regard the passing of the Corn Production Act"—
an Act which contained most extensive powers of control—
by the Coalition Government, whereby increased production of the soil is aimed at, minimum prices secured to the farmers, minimum wages to the agricultural labourer, with a Wages Board empowered to fix higher rates and recognition by the State of the vital importance of agriculture, as an earnest of the intentions of the Government to maintain increased food production and the maintenance of a higher standard of living.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: As the right hon. Gentleman quotes me as in favour of the Corn Production Act, perhaps he will also continue that Act and let the State take the responsibility for the Orders and Notices they give under it as their national responsibilities in these respects.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend is prepared to vote for a continuance of the powers of the Corn Production Act, how can he refuse to vote for this very much modified and limited control which is contained in the present Bill? We have been asked in this House for an agricultural policy. I should think that no Member of the Government has been, I will not say pestered, because I did not object to it,
but more plied with questions as to when we were going to produce an agricultural policy, than I have. We indicated pretty clearly that we are going to produce an agricultural policy, and we indicated pretty clearly what that policy was going to be. It was to be a policy of guaranteed prices, of rendering permanent the Agricultural Wages Board, of giving greater security of tenure to the tenant farmer; and all through we made it perfectly clear that, as a quid pro quo for greater security and for guaranteed prices, there must be a certain amount of control of cultivation, in the interest of the taxpayer, who might, and probably will, have to find the money in the near future for those guaranteed prices. We have produced our policy, based on precisely the lines that have been laid down over and over again, that were suggested at an interview with the Prime Minister, and adumbrated by the Prime Minister in his speech at Caxton Hall. We have produced that policy, and immediately my lion. Friends—the very persons who demanded it so loudly—turn round and criticise, not only this, but practically every detail of the Bill. What is our position? This is our policy, and from it we cannot depart. The whole Bill hangs together. We give security to the tenant farmer—

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: No.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We will see that when we come to it. We give guaranteed prices and compensation for disturbance to the tenant farmer. We give increased security to the agricultural labourer by rendering permanent the Agricultural Wages Board. And then, as the third part of the bargain, and a most important part, we demand that the taxpayer, who shoulders this burden, shall, at all events, have some right, so far as the national interest is concerned, and without interfering with the interests of those who are pecuniarily interested in the soil, to see that the land of the country is cultivated in the best possible manner for the production of food. From this threefold policy we cannot depart. It is all very well for hon. Members to talk of Germany. A speech was made to-night in which it was said that, if Germany produces more per acre than we do, it is because Germany has a protective system. Is that the agricultural policy you want? Do you suggest a protective system in this
country? If that is the only agricultural policy that the Agricultural Committee can suggest, I tell them that it is a policy which the country will not adopt. It is an impossible policy, and my hon. Friends know that it is impossible. I put it to the House that this Bill has been produced, has been carried through its Second Reading by a very large majority, and has been passed through a Committee, and it must either proceed on its present main lines or it will have to be withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw it:"] Then we shall get back to that laissez faire policy, that neglect of agriculture which has been condemned by nobody more strongly than by my hon. Friends who now ask us to withdraw the Bill. Between this Bill and laissez faire there is no alternative. The Government are convinced that agriculture has been neglected too long. A policy is required; they consider that the policy of this Bill, of which this particular Amendment is a vital part, must prevail. Though I regret, and no man more, to be at variance with my hon. Friends, whose opinions I respect, I ask the House to support the Government in this matter, because I regard it as the central part of the Bill.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: It is only fair that the House should also hear the recommendations of the Minority Report on this very important matter. My right hon. Friend complained, when I interrupted him, that it would take too long for him to read all this from their recommendations. It is to be found on page 11. The Minority Members consisted of eleven, and the Majority of twelve. Therefore, I think the Minority Report on such a matter as this should have more consideration than has been given to it. At all events, I think the House should know how the Minority Report reads.
If the State is to possess the powers of ensuring that the object for which the guarantees are given will be obtained, the only way in which it can be done under the guarantees is by giving the boards of agriculture or county committees power to enforce cereal cultivation. We do not believe that such powers could be practically applied, and we are of opinion that it would be against the best interests of the industry to attempt to control farming in such a manner. It was submitted to us in evidence that a certain amount of unsuitable land was ploughed up under compul-
sion during the War, and it is probable that the factors which caused this mistake to be made will continue to be operative in the future if the recommendations of the majority are acted upon. If compulsory orders are issued by county committees—
I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to this—
they are bound to have their character to a large extent determined by the natural desire of the members of such Committees to act in a way which will be apparently fair to each and all of their neighbours, but which would in fact entail the growing of cereals on unsuitable land. On the other hand, if the orders are issued by Government officials they will necessarily have difficulties which spring from ignorance of local conditions.
I think that report deserves every consideration. In addition to that, we had this matter threshed out in Committee. The Leader of the House told us, when he spoke this evening on the Ministry of Health Bill, that it was his desire always to pay attention and to give consideration to the feelings and opinions of his supporters. The feelings of his supporters in this matter, if they are given fair play to-night, are certainly against these compulsory ploughing orders. Speaking for Wales, we, as usual, are unanimous on this question. My right hon. Friends says, "When you get the guaranteed price, something that is really substantial, you must have control." We do not want guaranteed prices. That is our position. My right hon. Friend knows that the Welsh Farmers' Union have passed resolutions throughout the country, saying that they want not only not to have control but they do not want these guaranteed prices at all. We are specially independent in Wales. We stand on our own merits. All we want is fair play and an open market, and we do not want to depend for our profits on the taxpayers. Therefore it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, "We are giving you these magnificent guaranteed prices, and therefore we must control you." We say very respectfully, "Keep your guaranteed prices, and also keep hands on. We do not want any control whatever." I shall certainly vote against the Government.

Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I am against any protective measures as a rule, but the question for the House and the country is: Do they want an increased home supply of cereals. If so, you have to remember that this country
is not, and nothing will ever make it, a wheat-growing country. It is an oat-growing country, a barley-growing country, and a stock-growing country, but not a wheat-growing country. If the populations of our big towns are in earnest that they want to have a reserve supply of home-grown wheat in case of emergency they must pay for it. It is all very well to talk about taking away the guaranteed prices. Very good, for this year, but five years hence, when the American and other corn comes in, whore will the prices of wheat fall? They will fall down to where they were before.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: No, no.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: Very nearly, but not quite. They will fall much below what we can possibly grow wheat for, and then the manufacturing districts have to make up their mind, are they going to pay the world prices for their bread or are they going to ensure against a shortage of wheat owing to a war or something else, and take care that there

is a much larger production of wheat? If they do, they must pay for it, and they must tell the farmer that if he will grow wheat to satisfy the desire of the country for a national reserve of wheat in the country itself, they must guarantee the price to the farmer which in ordinary years will pay for the cultivation of wheat. I am not talking about this particular Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I have a minute more. That is the real position on which we have to think before we vote. Of course I shall vote for the Government because, although I disagree with them in certain details, in the broad principle they have stated we are bound to support the Bill in order that we may have what I think is the most important thing of all, namely, a national reserve of wheat in time of need.

Question put, "That the words '(b) that the production of food on any land can in the national interest' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 81.

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Gardiner, James
Mallalieu, F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Manville, Edward


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mitchell, William Lane


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Glanville, Harold James
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Atkey, A. R.
Green, Albert (Derby)
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Morris, Richard


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gregory, Holman
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Greig, Colonel James William
Neal, Arthur


Barnett. Major R. W.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barnston, Major Harry
Grundy, T. W.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Parker, James


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Perkins, Walter Frank


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hayday, Arthur
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Pratt, John William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Purchase, H. G.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Randles, Sir John S.


Bruton, Sir James
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rankin, Captain James S.


Cairns, John
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Cape, Thomas
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Carr, W. Theodore
Howard, Major S. G.
Robertson, John


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Royce, William Stapleton


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Irving, Dan
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Clough, Robert
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seddon, J. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Croft, Lieut-Colonel Henry Page
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Simm, M. T.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Elliot. Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lawson, John J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B, M.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Falcon, Captain Michael
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Sutherland, Sir William


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lorden, John William
Swan, J. E.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lunn, William
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Taylor, J.


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Tryon, Major George Clement
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Winfrey, Sir Richard
Younger, Sir George


Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Winterton, Major Earl



Waterson, A. E.
Wise, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whitla, Sir William
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)



NOES


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Starkey, Captain John R.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Lloyd, George Butler
Steel, Major S. Strang


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Lort-Williams, J.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Breese, Major Charles E.
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Turton, E. R.


Coats, Sir Stuart
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Courthope, Major George L.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Morrison, Hugh
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Gardner, Ernest
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Gould, James C.
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wilson, Lieut. Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut. Col. Hon. W. E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hinds, John
Rae, H. Norman
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn.W.)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Captain Spender Clay and Captain Fitzroy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.